I guess you can start with Dr. Michael Behe. Here is a good beginning. You may also want to check out this list.

Well, if you have to agree with the mechanism of natural selection, the rest of evolutionary theory pretty much logically follows.

I know as you’ve stated that you won’t debate it. However, this will not go off without a response. While life forms may mutate, they do not gain genetic information.

A bird population on an island may evolve into a population with different characteristics like beak size for instance, but this is done through a loss of genetic information. The birds with smaller bills will not survive because of the inability to gather food from deep cracks, therefore the ones with longer bills mate with other long billed birds and create long billed offspring. There is no gain of genetic information. They lack the ability to grow gills and swim off the island to find food. A bird will never become a fish. Just as humans, we lack the genetic information to grow wings and fly. No matter how scarce the food supply becomes on earth.

I’ll bite, anyway.

Some of the most pious people who ever lived did more to advance science than atheists I can think of. Here are some quick examples:

For optics and shadow and flow mechanics (among a thousand other things): Leonardo DaVinci (Catholic)
For evolution: Charles Darwin (Anglican, stopped short of becoming an Anglican parson himself)
For taxonomy: Carl Linnaeus For genetics: Gregor Mendel (actively an Augustan Priest at the time)
For botany and agriculture: George Washingon Carver (Protestant)
For chemistry: Robert Boyle: eponym of the Law, and defender of the Christian faith)

For astronomy, we have
Nicolaus Copernicus (Catholic)
Galileo Galilei (a Catholic nearly excommunicated for his troubles)
leading to planetary motion: Johannes Kepler (a devout Catholic)
leading to more astronomy: Jeremiah Horrox (an English curate, Calvinist, and possibly a Puritan)
leading to general motion: Issac Newton (Anglican with a difference of opinion or two)

Let’s try some non-Christians believers while we’re at it.
Albert Einstein: relativisitic physics (Jew)
Eratosthenes of Cyrene: (Ptolemeic Greek)

Never mind all the pure mathemeticians, philosophers, doctors of medicine, who hear a higher calling, and excel scientifically because of it.
How about poets, musicians, artists, authors?

I could go on and on about this, find examples of religiously motivated scientific greatness in every major religion and most of the minor ones, spanning 5000 years up to the present day, but this much should illustrate my point:

Religion isn’t antithetical to science. Religion motivated, and continues to motivate, science and universal understanding. The great achievements in science, music, mathematics and philosophy are by and large the domain of devoutly religious people.

I defy you to do the same for atheists in any great number.

It is atheistic notions –collectivism, socialism, fascism, nihilism, and even a dismissive rejection of meeting religious zealotry head on– that are the real banes on Society in the last Century and the next.

I’ll start at the end and work backwards I guess-

“Mistakes in publications” refers to those things that for a period of time the best science says is true, but in time, (usually under 2 years, but not always) we find evidence otherwise. Sometimes these mistakes are say… missing a phase change in voltage, or sometimes fundamental calculus mistakes. They happen. But to say current “scientific facts” are always correct is just ignorant of the process.

“10 pages” I’m not interested in this dialogue, nor do i intend to waste that much time here. Your prejudice is shown in your generalization of me, someone who has never claimed to believe in creationism, as someone who can’t perform the same level of science.

“Area of expertise”
I didn’t say this was a flaw in itself, I just implied that the title scientist or engineer doesn’t begin to make you the resident expert on every technical field.

“Will I please name him”
No I will not. It is not my place to bring up personal struggles of peers publicly.

Here’s the bottom line, no matter what I believe some supreme being does, I still believe that said being works outside of my comprehension and I’d never scientifically prove such an existence. So I take science as fact, but I can belief truth outside of that fact and keep the 2 separate.

It is time for your side to admit the previous paragraph is acceptable and move beyond this type of debate.

Like Plato decreeing that heavy objects fall faster than light ones, you assert micro-evolution proves macro evolution. Real scientists would perform the experiments in which they could test and observe that hypothesis, much like Newton did some centuries later with light and heavy objects. To date, there are no such observations on macro evolution. There are dead things dug up that one scientist or another claims layout a road map. It’s a good story, but that’s all it is, a story, not an observation.

I recall an experiment we did with fruit flies back in high school. We had one set of control fruit flies and several sets which we exposed to various levels of chemical mutangens and radiation (microwave) to study mutations. I recall having 5 containers for the flies for each of our groups, 5 groups doing the experiment, and running 4 sets of data during the course of the experiment. I don’t recall how many flies we look at each time we checked the samples, but given their growth rate, 50 per cycle seems reasonable. Now according to the government (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/hs/hsfacts.html) there are about 35,000 high schools in the US. So, if we assume that high schools started doing these experiments around 1965 (a couple of years after Watson and Crick published about DNA), that means there should have been at least 7.7 BILLION fruit flies examined by high school students, and that’s going to exclude all the national laboratories running these things through far longer testing cycles. Yet for all the billions of fruit flies that have been examined in circumstance that, if macro-evolution were going to be true, ought to increase the chance of observing such an event, there hasn’t been ONE report of a non-standard mutation, let alone some sort of potentially species improving mutation. If anyone were to find such a mutation under laboratory conditions, it would be a world recognized advancement for macro-evolutionary theory.

But it’s not just that nobody has found it. It’s that no one is even looking for it. If biologists really believed it, they’d be looking for it, just like astronomers went looking for Mercury’s perturbations when Einstein proposed his general theory of relativity. On that basis I conclude that even Nobel prize winners don’t really believe in macro-evolution, they just demand cult-like adherence to a belief system which lacks scientific rigor and proof.

But I don’t read the editorials. They are perceptive, or political, and completely irrelevant to science. I come here for my politics, I can’t swallow it in Science. It’s the wrong venue.

I hadn’t seen much anti-AGW stuff , and stopped looking for it a while ago. If it’s popping up now, great. If not, shame on them.