steve-i accept that i may put things a bit awkwardly at times.
but if you would like to see [though i doubt it!] the case put by a scientist the lead article on CMI just by co-incidence [maybe!] covers what i said yesterday about mutation-and finches!it is called "speedy species surprise".
there is a comment box at the bottom so may be you can question there.
the tone of your posts however suggests that you are not interested in what the arguments are ,much less have an open mind.
i,at least am up front on my presuppositions.

shimrod-i did mean to add more but time and forgetfulness intervened.
i accept that the biblical testimony is insufficient for the unbeliever but admit that it is the guiding principle for the believer.having said that i know many christians try to manipulate the plain meaning of the text to accomodate the theories of the day.

absence of evidence is also evidence of absence and i have shown that even evolutionary believers have admitted the insufficiency of the theory.
into such absences the atheist posits yet unknown discoveries.
the creationist scientist however works on the basis of a creator and as someone said are "thinking Gods thoughts after him"
it was in a biblical worldview in time past that science made great strides.the notion that a creationist perpective hinders useful science is nonsence.darwin dogma has hindered science as i previously demonstrated.
i also think the "dangerous" assertion is a gross exageration when compared to the atheist record.but thats been done to death previously.