The principal fact the 700 people dispute is the mechanism of speciation solely via random mutation and natural selection. They dispute this central tenet of Darwin's theory, which remains the central tenet of *all* subsequent evolutionary theory *except* for Intelligent Design.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp...

This article does not mention if any, all, or none of the 700 scientists are theists, non-theists, or atheists. According to the article, Medical Doctors qualify as "scientists."

If someone wants to prove that there are any non-theistic (atheistic) scientists who are proponents of Intelligent Design, he must supply an accredited statement from that person affirming the following facts:

1. The person is a "real scientist"- viz, has a "real degree" in some branch of science and is employed at a "real university." For example, not Oral Roberts University- since all its members can be assumed to be Christians.

2. The person is on public record as an avowed atheist.

3. The person is a proponent of Intelligent Design- and, again, "proponent" means you believe the theory is superior to any other version of evolutionary theory.

This is the lowest threshold of proof necessary to affirm that atheistic ID proponents exist.

If they do, I'll be pleased to be corrected.

And more- just in case anyone's curious- there is a list of links for further reading at the bottom of this article. Here are some of the weblink titles:

1. "Had it up to here with phony history?"

2. "How the Bible came to be."

3. "The Battle of the beginning exposes evolution lies for what they are."

4. "God, UFOs, and the Great Pyramid."

5. "Rabbi defends show linking Darwin, Hitler"

I think the hosts of this website are interested in a lot more than just which evolutionary theory best explains biodiversity over time.

"<dog>matic religion or society"

"IT guy"= Internet Technology guy, not Intelligent Design guy.

I bleeped right over that on my first reading of your post.

I wonder how many of the scientists on the list of 700 I posted actually work in a field actually relevant to evolutionary study.

For example, there are lots of IT scientists.

But I wouldn't give any of them any special credence on matters of evolutionary science, unless they were also biology scientists.

What might the relevant fields of expert accreditation be in the field of evolutionary studies?

BTW Ohio - well met old cock BUT, I heard what you said about me on the Stroganoff Cooking Page a while back about my ineptitude with economic recipes.

Fair comment, but 'twould have been even fairer if you'd demonstrated where my argument was wrong, rather than inserting a mere assertion to the effect I wasn't that much chop with that cuisine.

Beyond that old chap, good to see you're still annoying the crap out of us scientific types. Wouldn't it be awful if we all agreed on everything.

My idea of Hell really.

Except for the dire fellow on the homepage.

<Know anything about chess? It can be a virtual life work, and what is it to absorb all a man's thought and energy? A waste and complete escape from reality on any level. It is not creation. It is not even a real game, and if the theory of chess is ever fully understood it will cease to exist.

--- William Burroughs >

Here is part of the final episode- what a mensch he was

This is likely of interest to many in this thread=

<Nako: Can you substantiate that? I'd be very surprised to see a study which confirms this assertion.>

I don't have to date them to see they appear suddenly, in great numbers, in the geologic record. If I did want to use the current scientific model, I'd date them by saying "Those fossils are 5000 years old. How do I know that? I know that since the rocks they're in are 5000 years old. How do I know that the rocks are 5000 years old? They have 5000 year old fossils in them."

<OCF: When push comes to shove, your position is that it's fine and dandy to say "a few" are dishonest, but it's a deadly sin to say "most" are dishonest. I have given up trying to find some logical rationale for that.>

<BTW, I don't think that this pastor was deliberately misleading anyone -- he was just regurgitating the stuff that creation scientists were selling, and what they were selling was a way for Christians to avoid having to admit the traditional literal interpretation of Genesis was wrong.

I would even go as far to say that <<most>> <OCF interjects: Uhoh. Most?! Isn't that where you have such a problem with me?> of the creation scientists really believe what they are teaching. But they want & need to believe it so badly that they're willing to stoop to rather desperate measures to keep in propped up. Those measures amount to dishonesty, false accusation, and a theology that overstates the importance of their interpretation.

Christians keep rolling out the same stale creationist arguments over and over, even though scientists have refuted them by valid scientific reasoning over and over. However, those arguments do slowly die off (I notice that Answers in Genesis has a section called "Creation arguments to not use anymore"). Eventually, these arguments will collapse completely, as they did with geocentrism. Christianity will finally admit that their interpretations were wrong, but not before suffering heavy losses of credibility.

Such interference and hostility continues to this day. Why will Christians never learn?

These Christians are *so* confident that their simplistic literal interpretation of Genesis is *so* infallable that they are willing to go to war with scientists. But for all the reasons I discussed above, it's a stupid war.

However, I regard <<most>> <OCF interjects: There's that dreaded "most" again!> creation scientists as prideful and deluded at best. At worst, they are greedy liars who make a very good living for themselves by selling their deceptive products. They attach their wrong ideas to the Bible, so that when people reject their ideas they are also compelled to reject the Bible. Creation scientist are not your friends.

Yes, well, Christianity has been earning reputation for being prideful, abrasive, and gullible. Creation science has contributed generously to this cause.

Creation-scientists ignore the fact that natural science requires theories to be testable within nature. If a creation-scientist were asked to explain the observable facts of the universe and of life on earth -- AND they were NOT allowed to consider any holy book (e.g. Bible) or allow for miracles, they would never be able to come up with any theories better than the current theories of cosmology and evolution. <OCF interjects: You haven't read the creationist literature to make this claim>

Creation-scientists are not really defending the Bible. They are only defending their simplistic literal *interpretation* of the Bible. This is the most critical distinction. It's a "bad fight", which produces the general impression that Christianity is hostile and backward. It has a repelling effect, which is most unfortunate.

The Creationist case isn't provable at all, let alone provable by science. They "won't do it" because they can't. <OCF: It can if you allow them to start with a nonscientific hypothesis of a miraculous creation. You allow science to start with a nonscientific hypothesis of life arising from nonlife.> It involves a miraculous event that is outside the realm of science. You seemed to acknowledge this fact, but you don't seem to realize the significance of it.

Worse, it means that the accusations they make are false. This has happened many times in history, and it's a primary reason for why so many people regard Christians as backward, stubborn, and hostile.

I'll jump in here ahead of <whatthefat>. Your argument in the third paragraph of your last post about 5000 year old fossils and rocks is completely circular and self referential, making an assertion based on no evidence whatsoever.

As an argument, therefore, it's invalid.

<such is the current state of dating fossils in the world of science.>

Well...no actually.

<Dress it up, use words like marker beds and it passes muster though.>

Also no. Bit paranoid that thought IMO, or if not paranoid at least in the la la corner of conspiracy theory.

<If I make a false assumption, I might replicate a measurement forever and keep getting the same, though wrong, result.>

It might be worth noting that maths is underscored by logic, and science by causation.

The current state of dating fossils have been developed over a century or more. Dating has its confidence intervals (eg: 5,000 years plus or minus 100), but one thing it doesn't rely on is circular arguments based on no evidence whatsoever.