I see modesty isn't a creationist strong point.
Almost fifteen years later, those two birthday cakes still pose an unavoidable question about the prospects of the intelligent design movement.
Are we slaying giants, or tilting at windmills?
How about option 3. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
When you have to make up lies like ID to promote your religion you just end up turning more and more people away from Christianity and it's people like you that are a part of the reason it's in rapid decline around the world .
what to make of my emerging notoriety as the scourge of Darwinism,
Again what a humble guy
Sometimes the mission we have undertaken seems almost impossible, because the Darwinists are backed by the financial power of the federal government and the major foundations, plus the cultural power of the academic elite and the national media
And unfortunately for you, The "Darwinist" are also backed by the facts.
In a word, the manipulators can get away with a lot of lying, and they take full advantage of the opportunity.
You should know. (And lets not forget getting away with not paying taxes)
In fact, the experiments have been done, and they show that, despite more than a century of prodigious efforts, no natural mechanism capable of producing significant biological transformations has ever been observed.
ummm. UV, Geographic isolation.
They are resentful if creationists or other unbelievers quote their admissions to score points against Darwinism, even when the quotations are accurate and in context.
LOL! I like the quote "even when the quotations are accurate and in context." Emphasis on the word "even" meaning most of the time they are when they quote they are often inaccurate and out of context
The Darwinists have the media and the money on their side, but the challengers increasingly have the science. I wish we could resolve our dispute with the Darwinists by scientific experiments,
HUH????????
First you say you have the science then you say you haven't done any science
Fifty years ago, biologists and chemists confidently expected that newly discovered evidence would fix any deficiencies in the Darwinian model of evolution.
What deficiencies?
And I doubt that any scientist fifty years ago expected that everything would be known about evolution anytime soon. None would say that today. But in the last fifty years the evidence (i.e. DNA) has grown stronger and in the next fifty it's going to be even stronger assuming the moslems don't take over.
I am convinced that the factor that makes it extremely difficult to discredit Darwinism today is the very factor that ensures the theory’s demise in the not very distant future.
And how long have you've been saying this?
If Darwinism were to disappear tomorrow, experimental science would be unaffected, except insofar as the prestige of the ruling biologists might suffer so much that their funding would drop.
Yeah, Who needs any new antibiotics or pesticides anyhow, We will do just great with all the wonderful scientific discoveries creationist have made.
The importance of Darwinism is cultural, not scientific. The power of the Darwinian myth over modernist minds is so complete that reasoning in all subjects, including law, literature, ethics, and sometimes even theology, has to start from the assumption that God is out of the picture.
Which God out of the 1000s humans have worshiped??
When the hungry clever people finally understand their opportunity,
Like you who found the opportunity to make mega-$$$$.
Darwinism will join its cousins Marxism and Freudianism in the dustbin of intellectual history.
I would say the same about ID, But there is nothing "Intellectual" about it.
LOL, good catch!They are resentful if creationists or other unbelievers quote their admissions to score points against Darwinism, even when the quotations are accurate and in context.
LOL! I like the quote "even when the quotations are accurate and in context." Emphasis on the word "even" meaning most of the time they are when they quote they are often inaccurate and out of context