John Brock wrote:

The rock bottom difference of course is that the scientific community
has *earned* our trust, by producing a steady stream of *true*
miracles, like airplanes that really fly, and medicines that really
cure, and so on. Even if I had never studied science and understood
none of it, the fact that science *works* would be enough to convince
me that the scientific enterprise was rooted in something *real*.
Even if I understood none of the logic, I would believe in evolution
because I believed in airplanes. I think this is the way most
people approach the issue (after all, most people aren't scientists),
and I think that's why Creationists are determined -- above all!
-- to misrepresent the *size* of their movement, and make it look
big. Size does matter. I think even many Creationists would lose
heart if they understood how few scientists accept their beliefs!

To answer part of your childish rant I asked for his credentials
because he was placing his expertise over another in the field
that he disagreed with, a Dr. Chein, and making many assertions
as scientific fact. I made it clear, how did you miss it? Selective
reading or selective comprehension?

Your above comment illustrates your narrow minded world view
so I'm not going to waste anymore time with you, given your level
of maturity, but I'll leave you with this...

From a well know fundamentalist right wing source...

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat.../11/slack.html
Scientists talk about why they believe in God.

In his day, Albert Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind." More recently, a Nature survey of
American scientists found about 40 percent of them to be religious.