In 50 years time we will still be having the evolution/creation debate. The Creationist arguement will be the same because a 2 year old can see design. The evolutionist position will change many times over because it is based on fraud. The best they can do is to attack to messengers and then accuse Creationist as being dishonest. The thought of not having a Creator might give people a few fuzzies and let them enjoy their sin guilt free for a short while. Soon we will be dead and you will face your Maker. Your arguements in the name of science will look pitiful. Evolution is nothing short of fraud and deceit and many scientist know it.

This is a beautiful poem, written post Darwin, when poets were realising the fallacy of religion and the existence of a god, and we humans were here on earth, no guiding god, left to our own devices. I love the last stanza in particular.
I think it is relevant to what has gone on before.

Dover Beach
Matthew Arnold

The sea is calm to-night.
The tide is full, the moon lies fair
Upon the straits; on the French coast the light
Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand;
Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
Come to the window, sweet is the night-air!
Only, from the long line of spray
Where the sea meets the moon-blanched land,
Listen! you hear the grating roar
Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
At their return, up the high strand,
Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
The eternal note of sadness in.

Sophocles long ago
Heard it on the A gaean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

You're perfectly right, runner, this debate will still be around in 50 years' time. And science will still be a verb, not a noun.

I'm normally against line-by-line rebuttals, but a post from runner is always pure gold, so it'd be a waste not to savour it.

<< The Creationist arguement will be the same because a 2 year old can see design. >>

Indeed. A two-year-old can also see that the earth is flat and that a heavy object falls faster than a light one. Have you considered that, just perhaps, the impressions of pre-schoolers aren't the best basis for scientific enquiry?

If your strongest argument against evolutionary theory is that toddlers find it a bit too complicated, then you're hardly on the verge of unravelling the worldwide Darwinian conspiracy.

<< The evolutionist position will change many times over because it is based on fraud. >>

Or perhaps it will change as new evidence comes to light - a recurring problem for areas of knowledge not based on Bronze-Age folk stories.

<< The best they can do is to attack to messengers and then accuse Creationist as being dishonest. >>

This is rich indeed. Plan A for runner is to immediately assume victim status and attack the messenger. When the argument goes against you (which it usually does because you rarely provide evidence to back your claims) you simply turn up the volume.

If you want a primer in dishonesty, take a look at the creationist quote-mining project. If the case for design is so strong, why is that sort of underhanded scummery necessary? I doubt Jesus would approve.

<< Evolution is nothing short of fraud and deceit and many scientist know it. >>

You say this whenever evolution is mentioned, and you have never produced one bit of credible evidence to back it. Instead, you just refer to some large, anonymous body of scientists or doctors who don't believe a thing about the science they practice for a living. Apparently an assurance from runner is proof enough that these people exist.

relda,
I have to repeat that I am not a historian but as far as I know, nineteenth-century data about Inquisition have already been corrected, (see e.g. http://www.amazon.com/Spanish-Inquisition-Historical-Revision/dp/0300078803/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219739148&sr=8-1) showing that not only religious but also anti-religious (or anti-Church) zealots of recent centuries could be carried away while looking for support of their preconceived positions. Nevertheless, I agree that even for contemporaries Inquisition was something horrible (as was e.g. medical practice of amputating a limb without an anesthetic).

>> Father Richard P. McBrien, undoubtedly ... would have found himself a necessary victim of the ‘collateral damage’.<<
Yes, so would Darwin, Einstein, Heisenberg, Teilhard de Chardin, and probably also Benedict XVI. I was about 15 years old when I asked my father how would Aquinas have reacted to TV: would he think that there were little people or devils hidden in the box? He then convinced me that it does not make sense to ask such questions.

Dan,
>>In which case you would get the views of the Relda, George and Waterboy type who also hold a low view of creationists.<<
You forgot to mention Ayala, Coyne, JP II and Benedict XVI.

What is the difference between 'creating' and 'evolving'? Both seem to suggest a universe in flux?

What is the difference between "there was a big bang" and "then there was light?"