Objectivity Deeply In Question

The only thing Darwinists have in their court is institutional inertia. Because they do not have the facts on their side they cannot pound on the facts. All they can do is pound on the table. Exiled From Groggs:

(H/T Evolution News)

Adam Rutherford, of Nature, believes that your presuppositions determine your ability to do science.

...were I in a position to offer Guillermo Gonzalez tenure, I would deny it for the precise reason that his, yes, religious views about purpose in the universe explicitly mean he is a crap scientist, regardless of his ability to generate valid data...

From which it is logical to infer that he thinks that Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Maxwell ... are also "crap scientists".

Hmm. Now I have one of two options, here. Option one is to conclude that he is right, and that all of these people are crap scientists because of their presuppositions. Option two is to conclude that he is a crap journalist, and no serious journal should be employing him (... and any journal that does employ him is thus not serious). Now let me think ....

It's refreshing to have the real issues laid on the table.

And, hey, what could be more obvious than the fact that recognition of final causes blinds one to efficient, material, and formal causes? It's in your Aristotle, people!

Or what could be more obvious than that only those who embrace universal futility can make progress?