Look, I'm happy for you that you believe in a supernatural creator. If it makes you feel good, great! We all need a little psychedelic assistance now and then.

But please don't confuse your inner feelings with anything resembling objective truth or scientific fact.

Unknown soldier writes "... total fool..." and accuses me of ad-hominem attacks... right...

Evolution is a scientific fact. Creationism is religious fantasy. The two should never be confused.

Your point is irrelevant. You cannot analyze biology by looking at quarks. The level of inspection is simply far too removed from the phenomenon you're trying to explain.

Lastly show me where Darwinism OR Evolution explains where the natural laws come from?

I don't believe the theory of evolution claims to explain that. Explaining how the laws of the universe arose is in the realm of cosmology, not biology, and we have only tentative scientific theories at this point.

However, religion does not explain anything. It doesn't make testable predictions the way science does. You say there was a creator? I say no, there were seventeen creators and a hundred and fifty-three Creative Assistants. The Universe blinked into being at 3:42pm last Thursday, except we think we've been around longer because we've received implanted memories.

There's no way to decide between our theories because neither is scientific; neither is falsifiable. (Except that it does seem people were designed by committee... :))

Evolution is about as close to an established fact as anything in biology. So yes... someone who calls him or herself a scientist and then rejects evolution is not someone I can respect, any more than I'd respect a "scientist" who says the Earth is flat or that the Sun orbits the Earth or that the Earth is less than 6000 years old.

Disbelieving in evolution is not blasphemy; it's simply a complete rejection of the scientific method, and yes... I cannot respect a scientist who does that.

Religion does not value truth. It values obedience, submission and the rejection of embarrassing questions.

So everything is built on physics? So am I to presume that you'd make stock-market predictions base on the interaction of quarks? It's all physics, after all...

That's a veiled ad hominum argument

No, not at all. I'm genuinely curious as to why the OP thinks the opinions of a nuclear physicist are particularly germane when it comes to discussing biology. I assume we wouldn't expect an entomologist to pontificate about neutrinos...

As far as I can tell, it's all still philosophy, and the science that we have, namely molecular biology, breeding and the fossil record do not show evolution as the conclusive final word on how life works.

This puts you in strong disagreement with about 99.5% of all working biologists. Maybe you're right... but I really doubt it.

Read the Coyne book I mentioned. He's considerably less incendiary than Dawkins who does tend to be a bit sarcastic.

Show me where Darwinism OR Evolution explains where consciousness comes from?

Consciousness is an adaptive evolutionary change. Conscious creatures survive better than non-conscious ones, evidently, hence consciousness evolved through natural selection. As to why the conditions that evolved consciousness exist, it just happened that things worked out that way. Sometimes things really do happen for no reason. Despite the fact that you might not like that, the Universe really does not care.

Science by definition is amoral.

I never even mentioned morality here. In my opinion, religion by definition is immoral since it presupposes to know what an ultimate creator wants, and inevitably ends up meting out the most despicable cruelties on those who reject the religion. You can't argue with the word of the ultimate creator, after all.

the simplest answer is that some unknown intelligent agent guided the design of it.

No, not at all. Because rather than reducing the difficulty of the problem, you now have the increased difficulty of explaining the origin of the unknown intelligent agent. You've gone a step backwards.

Dawkins is an expert in biology, but woefully uninformed about theology/philosophy

An "expert" in theology? :) Is that like knowing what color the invisible unicorn is without looking it up? Or being able to count how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

Lastly, Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D., theoretical nuclear physicist

And a theoretical nuclear physicist is more qualified than biologists like Coyle and Dawkins to write about evolution because... ?

You posted a number of irrelevant responses, misrepresentations of what the Theory of Evolution says, and some plain old nonsense. Please read the books I referenced, then report back.

If anything, Mims is more open minded than the likes of you

Open-mindedness is often a virtue. It's fine to be open-minded about other people's cultures, what they do for fun, what they enjoy as entertainment, how they choose to organize their cities, etc. It's pretty stupid to be open-minded about trying to decide whether or not 2+2=4 or 2+2=5, or whether the fact of evolution through natural selection is true or false.

We have witnessed natural selection in action even within the lifespan of a human being. Hint: antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

He already said that there is missing evidence (as cited by Darwin) to which there still is no answer.

Mims is wrong. I posted the names of a couple of books that completely refute Mims; please go and read them. I refer to "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne and "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins.