Quote:

Science is about explanations. But explaining something with a cause that "isn't natural and can not be explained" is no explanation at all.



So your replacement to this is to say that even though we don't see evolution in life, in genetics, or in the fossil record, we should accept it simply because it doesn't include a creator?

I'm not saying scientists should conclude that God exists, but it isn't outside the realm of science to admit that geology better fits a flood conclusion.

Or better yet, to admit that we don't have the fossils to back up evolution. We don't have the genetic comparisons to back up evolution (except like any good pseudoscience, when the genetic comparisons don't match up, its just because we would expect things to look contrary to evolution if evolution is true, and besides we can just ignore those instances for the most part and focus on the comparisons that do match up) and so on and so forth. I'm not saying science needs to return to God. But putting science in a box just because you don't like the idea of God isn't any smarter. Its just limiting your thinking.

Quote:

Because scientists normally dislike lying.



Gould would disagree with you. Should I quote him at length again?

Quote:

Genetic similarities between species are in fact strong evidence of a common ancestor... and thus one of the big problems of creationism.



Except where you consider that genetic similarities create more problems than they solve. You're right, a lot of genetic similarities match up with the pre-conceived tree of life. But the problem is that there are just as many that don't. So you could come up with any tree you want, even one in many aspects completely opposite of the accepted tree, and you'd still find similarities that match your tree.

Quote:

You do not need an alternate universe. Just imagine a computer simulation that contains artifical, intelligent people. If they knew that they live in a world that was created by a programmer, would their scientists deny it? Of course not. The programmer is a natural, scientific explanation.



No, because the programmer wouldn't be made out of numbers....so they would have to conclude that the programmer is extra-universal, however they conceive their universe. Its kind of subjective, because no one knows what artificially intelligent scientists would think if they lived inside of a computer.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."