For the newbie, "crevo" threads are where religious battles between theists and atheists are conducted. Science itself is rarely, if ever, discussed.
The funny thing is, both the "creationists" (theists) and the "Darwinists" (mainly atheists — though I certainly don't believe all are such, just the loud ones around here, and Richard Dawkins, of course) — are engaging in theological dispute: The 800-pound gorilla in the room is always God, not Darwin. And that on both sides.
Now the theists posit many attributes to God; such as, from my little list, Creator; Father, Son, Spirit; Logos, Alpha–Omega; Savior, Redeemer; Justice, Truth, Goodness, Beauty; among others.
The atheists also posit an attribute to God, but only one: Non-existence.
Of course, one cannot posit anything of a non-existent entity. At least, not logically. 'Nuff said.
Evidently, the atheists think Darwin helps make their case; which is why the theists mainly hate Darwin.
But it seems to me Darwin should not be held culpable for the usages to which his theory has been put by modern-day ideological entrepreneurs. I don't hold him responsible for, say, Richard Dawkins.
It would be really nice to have a bona fide discussion about a scientific topic around here. Some time.
JMHO, FWIW
I see very few people post to the crevo threads that are self-professed atheists. Most of the theological argument seems to be among the theists, with people of different beliefs and doctrines arguing their the "true" Christians and the others guilty of various forms and degrees of heresy and apostasy, in terms that imply every imaginable evil in the process.
I can understand the scientists not wanting to be conscripted into that war.
Ok... Where did the third human on this planet come from?...