[Ham] I confess to not knowing this at the time. The quotations were edited by two Ph.Ds, which I assumed to be scientists, and the bibliographical references were eminent and well-known scientific researchers. The only mention of God was in relation to phenomena whose existence could not be objectively be accounted for. I did not see this as particularly "religious".
[Krimel] The "Ph.Ds" are hacks who make a cottage industry out of misconstruing the work of legitimate researchers. I suspect they trace their linage through Francis Shaeffer who was kind of the Leo Strauss of the religious right. He attempted to put an intellectual face on right wing Christian politics and metaphysics, R.C Sproul, who is listed in their bibliography is another such person who distorts logic into something really creepy. The authors of this article seem to be young Turks in this tradition. John Ankerberg is a kind of the Sean Hannity of this crowd. He uses the same technique of attempting sound reasonable until you actually think about what he is saying. If you are serious about trying to "...see what the scientific objectivists themselves had to say on the matter." Then surfing the websites of Christian radicals just won't cut it. Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" might be a good starting point. E.O Wilson's "On Human Nature" or his "Biodiversity" might be helpful. Almost any of Gould's collections of essays are excellent. The PBS series entitled "Evolution" is extraordinarily good and is available through Netflix. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
