[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Waarnemer

there is no credibility in a point of view in which people try to refute a fact simply because it conflicts with own interests, unscientific.

this is exactly the charge laid against today's Darwinists.
They treat Darwinism as an unquestionable Holy of Holies, the highest Dogma, not because it is a proven scientific fact (because it isn't), but rather because it offers a possible model of existence without a God.
It appeals to their Atheism, not their love of science.

ok, its debatable what could be considered as notable and what the point is, either way jerry bergman is far from notable or it would be as infamous. also you keep referring to darwins theory giving an impression that evolution would equal darwins findings. i don't know if you do that on purpose though, thought i should mention it.

Darwin posited the theory of Macroevolution, that we descend from monkeys, from shrew-like creatures, from more primitive things from this or that all the way back to a single celled organism. In other words, for Darwin to be correct then one species has to mutate into a new one.
That has never been observed or verified.

In any case, the problem is not necessarily that Darwinism is wrong.
It is the refusal to even contemplate any other possible theories that is so very dangerous to science. This is the very dogmatic fundamentalism that Neo-Darwinists project onto any dissenters from their official orthodox view.

darwin isn't above question nor criticism like you say, his findings are empirical so that would be a contradiction. what is above question and criticism among christians is religion, even if god would exist you wouldn't dare to question him so it would be an idea to stop reflection own faulty upon evolution

Personally, I don't know any Christian who don't have doubts about God.
I do know many atheists who are 100% certain that there is no God, however.
I even used to be one myself. You can judge for yourself who are the more close-minded

now i doubt there is even one single scientist alive today who would question microevolution,

The essence of Darwinism is MACROevolution. That is what is being questioned. No-one is questioning Variation Within The Species.
In fact, that is what Neo-Darwinists often try to pass off as "proof" of Darwinism today.

its very hard to question something which can be observed with the naked eye, and that brings us to macroevolution, although the evidence is utterly overwhelming

The "evidence" is utterly circumstantial.
It fulfils no scientific proofs. It is not observable. It is not verifiable. It cannot be reproduced by experiment. It is utterly lacking is anything that would normally constitute a scientific proof.

What many people are now concerned with is not that Darwinism may be wrong. I am perfectly open to the possibility that it may be right.
It is the refusal to even listen to any alternatives that is a serious threat to scientific progress.

The Neo-Darwinists seek to protect their theory at all costs because anything else might open up to the possibility that there maybe intelligent design to life. And that would represent a threat to their Athiestic ideology.
That is why they are so militantly aggressive to anything which attacks their precious theory.

its an 'easy' target for people like you yourself, but if something contradicts with your believes and its being proved, its up to you to reflect and over think your own ideas

What you have written above is a textbook example of what psychologists call "Projection"

The real fundamentalists are perhaps closer to home than you might like to think.