“Which “evolution scientist[s]” do you use, and what writings of theirs do you incorporate into your lessons?”
We use Apologia textbooks in the later grades, written by PhD Jay Wile - General Science, Physical Science, and Biology, so far. A brief glance through his texts shows quotes/examples from Darwin, Albright (archaeology, Neils Bohr, Einstein, W.H. Burr, Stephen Hawking, Sir Charles Lyell, Max Planck, Ivan Pavlov. . .many many more.
More tellingly, we learn of great Christian scientists as well, who had no problem (apparently) reconciling creation with their field of endeavor: oldies like Bradwardine, Nicholas of Cusa, Copernicus, also Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, and Sir Isaac Newton. Robert Boyle, van Leeuwenhoek, John Dalton, and Linnaeus who gave us our basic classification system, Biology, no less. James Joule of the First Law of Thermodynamics!! Roger Bacon, Grosseteste. . .
I’d have to read all the textbooks through to give you everybody, but you get the general idea.
Evolutionist and Creationist scientists side by side, no fear, and that is where I really respect the Creation Scientists. They will tell you, with reasonable honesty, the opinion of the Evolutionists. I can attest to the honesty because I was taught evolution throughout my school years. Yet Evolutionists will not mention Creation Science even as a theory, even as something they oppose.
As far as I can tell, Wile has a PhD in chemistry and his research focus was nuclear chemistry. Additionally, his last professional article was published in 1993, and since 1995 he appears to have absolutely no association with any accredited university. From 1995 to 1998 he wasn't even doing vaguely academic work; he was doing database programming or something. Why would you use a biology course written by someone who doesn't have any credentials in biology?
Here is what one Amazon reviewer had to say about Wile's biology course:
At one point Wile compares a certain basic protein, which is known to scientists as one of the simplest building blocks of life, and that is present across all species, and compares the differences between the protein in one animal and the protein in another, and shows that there is no relation between how distant the animals are related evolutionarily and the differences in the proteins: but this is very poor science, proteins are heavily modified after they are made, which is why scientists go to the blueprint of the protein: the DNA. DNA is the genetic material We've all heard of the "human genome project", which mapped out the DNA of human beings, and we all know that the project found the DNA of humans was only one spot different from chimps, and a couple from gorillas and orangutans and so on, and it all confirmed what had been previously theorized about human evolution. Well while Wile presents "evidence" from a single protein, which really can tell us nothing about evolutionary history, he decides not to even tell the student about the Human Genome Project! This is gross negligence!Is it true that Wile doesn't even mention the Human Genome Project? If so, that's incredibly dishonest of him. What arguments for evolution does Wile discuss?