Of course, this is utter foolishness, supported neither by the history of science itself (many of the "founders" of modern science were passionate Christians), nor by the scientific method. A Christian (or theist) looks at the laws of the Universe as the general workings of God in His creation, whereas a naturalist says we must work in the lab "as if" there were nothing but what is observable -- even if we currently do not have accurate means to observe it.
This is -of course- not about "science" at all, but about the philosophical underpinnings of science. A Christian sees God in all of life, and insists that the evidences for His existence, wisdom, morality and power are abundantly evident in creation. The Christian further claims that the inability to "see" these things comes not from the lack of evidence, but the deliberate unwillingness to see them. In fact, the modern Christian scientists claim echo Paul when he says that this blindness is the result of deliberate repression of clear and plain evidence, based on a desire to escape the presence of God (cf Romans 1:18-20).
This is certainly validated in statements by certain prominent men of science like Thomas Huxley when he claimed that he adopted a naturalistic worldview more from a desire to pursue sexual activity without guilt than from evidentiary examination, and from Thomas Watson's statement that he and Crick were driven to discover dna's structure primarily by a desire to escape a worldview which included God.
Since much of American evangelicalism is shallow, surface, uninformed and silly.... AND since we have hopped into bed with the Republican Party as though it was the messiah, there are all sorts of excesses and embarrassments in what they are trying to do. (to forstall the hail of slings and arrows, I will add that I have voted Republican in every election since Nixon).
The bottom line here is that it is a debate over how science should be done, not over whether "evolution" is true or not. Lots of Christiasn and genuinely confused secular scientists gloss right past it, but it is the only thing of real substance being barked about.
You mean Aldous Huxley and Jim Watson?
Huxley, when he said this, was setting up a position to argue against. Jim Watson was motivated by a desired to beat Linus Pauling, and has never said what you claim he said.
But hey. if you're going to libel somebody, get his name wrong as well.
And you wonder why scientists hold creationists in such contempt? How about an inability to get simple details correct? How about posting damnable lies without the slightest care whether they're true or not?
Many thanks, I think you have succinctly stated my own impression of the debate, but which I had hitherto been unable to articulate.
However, I'm now worried about what does indeed happen when Penguins attack. My wife and I, on honeymoon in Ecuador, were fortunate enough to see equatorial penguins on the Galapagos Islands; we did not know that there was any particular risk involved!