Nice diatribe. I'm sorry, but yes, creationist sites are irrelevant, by definition. Apologists have a need to believe in god, and this need informs their opinion on the science. If you can find me work by actual scientists, those working without a preconceived agenda, then that's another story. Their religious belief is irrelevant until they allow it to interfere with their ability to be objective. Would you, for example, be interested in the opinion of a devout muslim on the divinity of jesus? You shouldn't be, because no matter what, his opinion is set in stone from the beginning. Same with christian apologists - most are unable to reconcile the massive evidence for evolution with their religious conditioning, and cognitive dissonance does the rest - resulting in this manufactured controversy. Seriously, we are at the point where we can say that either evolution happened, or some god like creature really wanted us to think that it happened, but you wouldn't know it for all the "teach the controversy" wackos out there.<quoted text>
Okay,first, let's address this whole "apologist site" issue you have. It's rather ludicrous that you expect I retrieve information that refutes Darwinism from a Darwinist site. That's not gonna happen. It's also quite shallow of anyone to close their mind to scientific data just because it's posted on a creationist site. Scientific facts are facts...regardless if Mr. Magoo writes it, so long as it's backed by proof. I also find it hilarious that the wonderful world of science will accept the scientific discoveries of men such as Mendel, Pascal, Bacon, Newton, Faraday....I could go on and on...but they are scientists who believed in God. Anyway, science will use the discoveries of these great scientists as building blocks for their work. Science accepts their data as true, because they cannot refute it. Yet, you, a mere topix poster, think any information from a site that may contain data from a scientist who believes in God, to be irrelavent. If you aren't willing to accept scientific facts, simply because of the site they are posted on, then basically...what you're telling me, is your opinion is biased. If you lack the ability to be objective, then you limit your ability to learn, This conversation is quite useless as you cannot debate an issue if you refuse to accept factual data.
Pascal, Bacon, etc. are irrelevant. Science does not simply "accept their work because they cannot refute it," they accept it because it is good work and because these men did not allow their personal beliefs to slant their scientific work.