You said -- "I question the designation "Top Scientist". This is just some schmoe with a bid for notoriety."
Of course, I was merely indicating what was given in that article and seemingly the opinions of "other top scientists" too. It appears to be their opinion.
Now..., to minimize his credentials and say he's just a "nut case" actually diminishes the seriousness of this particular situation. It's like saying about the guy who is sitting on the bus, talking to an empty seat -- "Well, he's a nut case and I can ignore him."
The problem is (here) is that he's apparently not a nut case. He's credentialed; he's teaching hundreds and thousands of students (giving them the same philosophy); he's recognized by other so-called "top scientists".
Therefore, I think calling him a nutcase does a disservice to the real problem here. What we're seeing here is the *actual fruit* of the idea of "Evolution" and it's ultimate outcome, when people are really "serious" about this anti-God philosophy.
"Evolution" is a false and deceptive and destructive philosophy and needs to be fought against and -- in its place -- we need to put in the true philosophy of the Bible, in that God created mankind as told in Genesis (not as in the "evolutionary theory" which gives lizards equal moral footing with man).
We see the end results (of thinking -- and eventually *action*) of really believing the "evolutionary theory" and being "anti-God" and anti-Bible.
So, no -- I don't think he's a "nutcase" -- but rather someone who is following his "evolutionary theories" to their *true conclusions*.
The problem here -- is -- that the Evolutionary theory is absolutely false -- and he's willing to gather a following of people committed to killing off 90% of the humans on the planet -- because of this theory of "science".
Regards,
Star Traveler