>>Oh, and let’s not forget the *any challenge to the ToE is not scientific, it’s religious apologetics* label. <<
Its really unfortunate if it comes across that way - since challenge and asking for transparency and proof is part and parcel of any science.
Scientists are people and they have flaw and tempers.
If its any consolation, within science circles I’ve had very good luck asking about holes in theories and hypothetical about what it would mean if some theory is found to be wrong. Likewise I get asked questions about my beliefs as a Christian its never seem to have impaired my ability to work with other scientists.
There are of course a-holes in science. And more than our fair share of scientists impaired at talking to non-scientists - its probably comparable to the issues with computer geeks.
A lot probably depends on their perception of you, whether you're a scientist asking who happens to be a Christian, or whether you're a Christian asking, who happens to be a scientist.
The problem is, anyone who legitimately questions the ToE and refers to any religious argument, is going to be perceived as attacking the ToE, regardless of their motivation, at least based on my experience here.
I stumbled on a crevo thread shortly after joining and posted a couple comments on the creationist side (not having any idea of what to expect) and was promptly shredded. It was an eye opening experience, to say the least.
There are of course a-holes in science. And more than our fair share of scientists impaired at talking to non-scientists - its probably comparable to the issues with computer geeks.
A problem not exclusive to scientists, as you know. There's a fair number who fit into that category on the religious side as well.
The difference is that the computer geeks often can't *help* but be pricks. Many of the banned posters who went to DC can be civil and charming once you get them off of theological subjects.
Cheers!