[Imnotalib]

This guy clearly doesn't understand the theory of creationism. Why do scientists think that if they can explain the mechanism by which something happens, it automatially rules God out? Doesn't it make sense that God would work through the physical laws that he created? Does he have to wave a magic wand for these folks to be convinced it's God?

[tomzz]

"I don't like the term 'evolutionist'... "

Wonder if the guy would prefer "evo-loser"....

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

You are essentially describing a variation on 'intelligent design' rather than creationism, which says that there has not been any macro evolution.

[ahayes]

? The statement you just said is consistent with theistic evolutionism and perhaps with some forms of "intelligent designism", but not with young earth creationism, which is what the above scientist was objecting to. Young earth creationism requires massive divine intervention and circumvention of the laws of nature.

[Rhetorical pi2]

I avoid arguments on evolution and intelligent design.
It's a "no win" discussion either way since both are "faith based".

But I meet creationists who have never read the Bible, and Darwinists who have never read Origin of the Species.

'Can't change either of their minds.

But neither of them are as irrational as the pro-abortion person who is also against capital punishment.

[sandbar]

>>>I don't like the term 'evolutionist' ->>>

Because that implies that I am not the allseeing, allknowing surpreme intellect that I think I am.

[Catholic Canadian]

the idea of a scientifically illiterate America dominated by religious fundamentalists fills me with horror.

Oh yeah, a-hole, what about a scientifically illerate Muslim world dominated by religious fundamentalists? Does that fill you with horror, because that is more a reality than the America you described, you ignorant P.o.s.

[gcruse]

"The model of the Universe built by science is vast beyond our understanding, old beyond our comprehension, complex beyond any possibility of our ever understanding even a fraction of the whole. Which model is closer to the mind of God?"

Sorry, but you don't fight bullshit with more bullshit.

[mountainlyons]

Actually evolution is a philosophy. Some say that there is so much evidence that evolution can not be argued against. These "facts" are only data and they can be argued either evolution or creation or for both sides. Scientific method was invented by Christians in the middle ages so to argue that creation in nonscientific is false.

[TheCrusader]

" - what they represent has little to do with science."

And of course to the prideful, arrogant 'scientist', science is all there is. But his statement is not quite true anyway; actually what we (Christians) represent has nothing to do with science. Our vision transcends what the eye sees, and our souls are anchored in the Absolute, Eternal God. "Evolutionists" are anchored only to themselves in this fleeting life, and are doomed to live without any meaning in their lives beyond their own puny brain power. Their vision is limited to what their retina processes and their 'empirical' brain can comprehend. Beyond this they see nothing. Just as an animal will invalidate something he can't smell, the evolutionist will invalidate something he cannot 'prove' with his brain. Both live in a base, soul-less world of the senses.

How empty and vacuuous the evolutionists' lives must be as they age and their brains deteriorate, and all they have left to 'anchor' themselves to is a scrapbook with pictures of dinosaur bones and dashed hopes of discovering the 'missing link'.

[Gunner9mm]

To rebut this guy, read Ann Coulter's latest book "Godless". Her last 4 chapters completely eviscerate Darwinian evolution theory.

[MEGoody]

The growing political influence of Christian fundamentalists in the US, who are closely associated with creationists, is a threat to the rest of the world.

LOL! Nothing like a little hysteria to perk up an otherwise stupid article.