[ProudGOP]

Without question, Charles Darwin would be among the most prominent biologists in history even if he hadn't written The Origin of Species in 1859. But he would not have been deified in the campaign to "enlighten" humanity. The battle over evolution is not an example of how heroic scientists have withstood the relentless persecution of religious fanatics. Rather, from the very start it primarily has been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science.

This is eloquent? This is ignorance. Darwin spent no time advocating atheism.

And just where does it say that Darwin was advocating atheism? I don't believe the "militant atheists" mentioned by the article were referring to Darwin himself.

So, your dismissal of the entire article based on the above paragraph is curious.

Also, I noticed that you didn't mention any of the "favorable evidence" that has "exploded in volume". Shall I just take your word for it?

[VadeRetro]

Also, I noticed that you didn't mention any of the "favorable evidence" that has "exploded in volume". Shall I just take your word for it?

I think it fascinating that so much of creation science involves bludgeoning others with the willful ignorance of the creationist. The major lines of evidence are summarized in this article, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. A frequent creationist reaction to that article is that it's too big to read and a high-level summary is needed. That IS the high-level summary of many different and largely independent lines of evidence leading to the same conclusion, that all life on Earth has common ancestry. (And, no, the evidence for "common design" would in most cases NOT be the same.)

There's plenty more, but we'll see what you do with that first.