Quote Originally Posted by TomOfSweden View Post
You're going to have to walk me through that one, because I don't underdtand your objection.

If you toss a coin into the air randomly and your dimensions is whether or not the coin lands on a flat side or an edge the chances are pretty good you'll get 100% on a flat side no matter how many times you do it. You still toss the coins randomly, but the result isn't random. It's the same situation with DNA. Physical constraints.
That is a persuasive argument, but as of yet no one has proved that certain compounds have to combine in certain ways. Chemical reactions are predictable, but the leaps of faith that I need to go form complex chains of molecules, to the interactions that drive life seem to be almost impossible. To take your anology, that quarter seems to be coming down on its edge way to much to be random.

All research that didn't suport the christian view of the world was illegal in all western countries for over a thousand years. It's an impressive feat of revisionism you're trying to pull off. I doubt even most christians will fall for that one. I'm guessing this little detail just slipped your mind. Christian fundamentalism has been the norm for so much of western history its easy to forget that it was only just recently we as a culture became free of its opression.

If you try to find a grant for your research, most grants are still religious all over the world. Christian scholars in particular are, compared to their secular counterparts still rolling in money.
I can find a number of researchers that would disagree with that. You are letting your bias show here. If Christians controlled the purse strings the way you think they do i could name at least one major grant that exists in the US that would cease to exist.

Science can prove evolution. If you deny it, that means that you have another source for your truths of the world. In todays vocabularly we tend to call people who fanatically cling to religous texts above all else as religious fundamentalists. Its only down to linguistic use.
This does not sound like Fundamnetalist language. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=owner%3Aarn

According to my molecular biologist friend, (who also has a Phd) there is no controversy in the scientific comunity. All scientists in biology quoted for denying evolution have all been missquoted. The debate on evolution is on minor details about how it works, not if it works. The blunt truth is that the problems found by the religious comunities just don't exist. It's not a question about creationism being ignored unfairly. They don't have a case yet. They lack a theory. Utterly and completely. Creationsim is an idea for a theory. What needs to be done now is for a scientist who believes in ID, to sit down and make a cohesive theory and then test it. This has yet to happen.
There is only one way to answer that, it is total rot.

Actually, you might be surprised about the level of controversy that exists inside the scientific community outside of the western world over Darwin's theories. We do not have the freeedom to challenge the icons of science here in the west the way they can in China, for example.