[Logophile]

Where is there "scientific evidence" of a CREATOR?

You have put your finger on the source of the controversy over evolution.

If by creator you mean God, there can be no scientific evidence for a creator. Natural science, by definition, excludes both teleological explanations and supernatural ones. It therefore cannot address questions related to God, either to prove or disprove his existence.

The problem is that some rabid secularists have tried to use the prestige of science to support an anti-religious agenda. They say, in essence, that because science does not prove the existence of God, that is proof that God does not exist. They can then reject traditional moral teachings based on religion.

Creationism is a reaction to this misuse of science. Unfortunately, it is also a misuse of science.

[Rudder]

They say, in essence, that because science does not prove the existence of God, that is proof that God does not exist.

Thankfully, those are few and far between and, furthermore, when they make such pronouncements they are going beyond the bounds of science

[Thatcherite]

The problem is that some rabid secularists have tried to use the prestige of science to support an anti-religious agenda. They say, in essence, that because science does not prove the existence of God, that is proof that God does not exist. They can then reject traditional moral teachings based on religion.

Doubtless you can post examples of "rabid secularists" saying this? It certainly isn't for example what either Dawkins or Dennett say. I am as rabid a secularist as anyone, and I wouldn't dream of saying that the clear fact of evolution proves that God doesn't exist.

Or did you just make this up or read it somewhere. I've asked for people to back up this claim up and every time all I've got is chirping crickets in response.