I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder, Junior, because those eminent folks to whom you refer were not "run off by luddites" -- though that might be their perception, their complaint. (Sometimes it's easier to blame others for our misfortunes than to examine our own behavior and take responsibility for it....)
One could just as easily say (depending on your point of view) that most chose to absent themselves because they were frustrated with the difficulty of "winning arguments" against "luddites."
Personally I think they should all come back. At least here at FreeRepublic, you can have a discussion about science. Which, based on my limited acquaintance with Darwin Central (just lurking), is not something that happens around there very often. Mostly it looks like a place to schmooze with like-minded cronies, and to make fun of "luddites," particularly "certain" luddites.
The "observer problem" is alive and well on both sides of this great divide....
BTW FWIW: this Christian luddite (that would be me) is an evolutionist; but just happens to think that Darwinian theory is not so much "wrong," as simply incomplete. It hardly can be said to be complete since it doesn't deal with origins. And possibly without accounting for origin, it is difficult (as best) and maybe even impossible to account for the source of information in biological life.
Such as, for instance, DNA itself: how did that "evolve," and from what? According to Hubert Yockey and many others mathematicians and physical scientists, amino acids have as much chance of "evolving" into proteins and DNA as a perpetual motion machine has of being successfully built).
With the departure of our friends, the Evo/Crevo debate suffers because the "opposing side" (i.e., the side that thinks neo-darwinism has the complete answer to every question of biological evolution) has simply withdrawn from the field....
In other words, all that is left for "luddites" like me to do is to "preach to the choir." Not very illuminating!
Everybody loses.
Thanks for your insights!
So, can you explain why RadioAstronomer's post #71 was pulled?
I think the basic problem with the Darwinian theory is that it is held by people who, at least in the most public of arenas, are too arrogant to admit to your point. If they would simply say, "Darwinism is the best theory that science has produced to explain the diversity of species in the world, but that we don't claim that the theory answers every question, and some questions may never be answered," they'd really end much of the debate. It's their insistence that Darwinism is a "proven fact" and any claim to the contray is "luddite" nonsense, that fuels the fires of controversy.
And I know for a fact, because I've had scientists tell me, that many confirmed evolutionists, while presenting a united front in the public relations battles, in the privacy of their own research and hearts, have doubts about the theory.
With all due respect, in my view, the people you speak of (I think we all know who you mean) were never here for friendly discussion and debate. They seemed to descend on evo/crevo threads in packs, and in doing a search of some of these folks within FR, most of them only posted to the evolution-related threads. Despite protestations that they are "conservatives," it was curious to me that most of them never showed any interest in anything on FR other than the evolution threads. Frankly, my conclusion is that they were here to push an agenda, not to engage in "friendly discussion," and they got frustrated because the "luddites" turned out to be more knowledgeable than they assumed. They didn't make any headway, and so they beat a hasty retreat. They withdrew by their own choice, and apparently have withdrawn as a pack. I don't necessarily miss the participation of those who were here in an attempt to hijack FR into their cause. Certainly, this thread proves that the evo side has some able proponents among FR's regular participants. We don't need professional evolutionists seeking converts to their mystery religion.
Jeez Betty, what were you smoking when you made this comment? Discussions about science on FR lead to countless unexplained bannings and deletions as well as a notable high profile sneaky homepage removal from the member who handled the evolution ping list. It's to the point where Freep conservatives who want to discuss science from a pro-scientific stance have to either dance on their tiptoes with a sword at their neck or go to Darwin Central to carry on a conversation and find old friends.
The great divide?.. LoL.. So TRUE..
I don't know about Adam and Eve that story could be a metaphor or not.. but I do wonder where the (3rd)third human being on this planet came from.. If not from two other humans now THERES a newsflash, a blockbuster of a story.. A human coming ((NOT)) from two other humans but born in some other fashion.. Its absolutely DNAilicious.. would rival the birth of Jesus..