Pim,
Thank you for your comments. I will focus on just two in this posting.
1) My observation that evolution is extremely popular among atheists is
not 'irrelevant' as you suppose. The Christian walk is fraught with many
difficulties and temptations - as you should know - and when we find
some doctrine (whose fruits are, invariably, seen to be bad) peddled
with evangelistic zeal by atheists it would be exceedingly foolish of us
to gobble it all up as gospel truth. Wouldn't you agree?
2) You regard as 'incorrect' my suggestion that the strict rigour of the
scientific method has been laid aside to accomodate this particular
theory. I believe the facts speak for themselves. Consider, for example,
the matter of assessing geological age. Isn't this the way it's done:
a) Assume evolution is true.
b) The Earth must therefore be very old.
c) Ignore all evidence which suggests a 'young' Earth.
d) Make appropriate assumptions relating to geochronological dating
methods (e.g. uniformitarian conditions throughout life of Earth,
initial composition of rocks containing radioactive isotopes, etc).
e) Never publicly confess these assumptions.
f) Reject datings which 'don't fit' as 'aberrations' or 'anomalies'.
g) Project the impression of overall scientific activity by focussing
attention on the laboratory techniques of analysis and the 'men in white
coats'.
h) Arrange the fossils in 'proper' order - explaining the many anomalies
by invoking notions such as 'overthrusting', 'reworking', etc.
i) Advance the outcome - the 'geologic column' - as prime evidence for
evolution.
In the trade, this would be referred to as a classical case of circular
reasoning and deceit on a grand scale. Where in it do we find the
evidence of unbiased inquiry? It is surely a tragic caricature of
science!
Can you really wonder that people like myself take all 'evolutionary'
claims (e.g. the sudden influx of 'intermediates') with a pinch of salt?
Vernon