You are accusing Steve of precisely what I see Darwinists do: Equating all
criticisms of Darwinism as arguing from biblical literalism. Even when they
do not cite the bible as scientific evidence, people criticizing neo
Darwinism are accused of having a "secret agenda" because they are Christian.
I've read Johnson and I've read Dawkins, etc., and the anti "random
mutation and natural selection as an explanation of macroevolution" argument
seems the most compelling to me every time. Neither Steve, nor any other
design advocate I've read, claim to have proven the design concept as a
scientific reality. They merely say the evidence it for looks compelling to
them (and to me). You are entitled to see it differently. You, Dawkins and
Dennet all admit to being materialists, don't you? I haven't met anyone
passionately defending neo Darwinism who isn't a materialist. People who are
not materialists are usually at least agnostic about neo Darwinism. Glenn was
an exception, and I really understood his point of view. You, Chris, can not
mandate that materialism be adopted as a universal truth. I don't want to
make up anyone's mind on the subject. I merely want the public to reach
their conclusion about design without name-calling, intimidation or court
orders about what can be discussed in schools.
Bertvan
bertvan