Another great quote from the article:
Chemist Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, a five-time Nobel nominee, commented, "Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances."
Truly, you folks are legends in your own minds.
"People generally quarrel because they cannot argue." -Gilbert K. Chesterton
Chemist Henry "Fritz" Schaefer of the University of Georgia, a five-time Nobel nominee, commented, "Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances."
Oh look, a classic example of the fallacy of "argument by authority". Schaefer is entitled to his opinion, of course, but since you don't give any hint of his alleged reasons for saying so, nor any examples of the alleged "different standards", you're just insisting that we take his word for it because, by gosh, he's a smart guy and thus he couldn't be wrong.
Nice try, but we have higher standards of debate around here.
Worse, Schaefer is clearly outside his field -- he's probably a very good chemist, but a glance at some of his papers show that he's an inorganic chemist, which places him even farther away from any direct work with biology than even an organic chemist would be. That's no guarantee that he doesn't know evolutionary biology well enough to comment on it as well, but I've spent the last 30 minutes reading through some of his essays on the subject, and he's clearly *not* familiar with the actual evidence and research which has been done in the field over the past few decades. And he gets even some of the basic stuff wrong, such as when he says, "The major feature of the fossil record is stasis, long periods in which new species do not appear." Um, no, sorry Dr. Schaeffer, but that's incorrect. New species appear (and old ones disappear) continuously through the fossil record. What's often static is the state of a *given* species during its tenure on Earth, which is another thing entirely. If Schaeffer can't get the easy stuff right, I'm not real confident about his ability to be right on the bigger issues. He's clearly outside of his field of expertise.
And he's got, shall we say, a bit of a personal bias: "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." -- Henry "Fritz" Schaefer. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but don't try to pretend that this is a purely objective scientist without his own evangelical views to possibly color his outlook.
Furthermore, some other quotes by him may not be as comforting to your position, such as, "I want to emphasize here that a belief in the complete truthfulness of the Bible need not carry with it a wooden or unnaturally literalistic understanding of every verse.", or "In this context, my personal opinion is that the universe is probably 15–20 billion years old." -- hmm Schaefer clearly agrees with modern cosmology, which causes a problem for the original article in this thread, which insists on teaching schoolkids that, "The Earth is young — in the range of 10,000 years or so."