[MD] For Peter

[Krimel]

[Ham]
I confess to not knowing this at the time.  The quotations were edited by 
two Ph.Ds, which I assumed to be scientists, and the bibliographical 
references were eminent and well-known scientific researchers.  The only 
mention of God was in relation to  phenomena whose existence could not be 
objectively be accounted for.  I did not see this as particularly 
"religious".  

[Krimel]
The "Ph.Ds" are hacks who make a cottage industry out of misconstruing the
work of legitimate researchers. I suspect they trace their linage through
Francis Shaeffer who was kind of the Leo Strauss of the religious right. He
attempted to put an intellectual face on right wing Christian politics and
metaphysics, R.C Sproul, who is listed in their bibliography is another such
person who distorts logic into something really creepy. The authors of this
article seem to be young Turks in this tradition. 

John Ankerberg is a kind of the Sean Hannity of this crowd. He uses the same
technique of attempting sound reasonable until you actually think about what
he is saying.

If you are serious about trying to "...see what the scientific objectivists
themselves had to say on the matter." Then surfing the websites of Christian
radicals just won't cut it.

Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" might be a good starting point. E.O Wilson's "On
Human Nature" or his "Biodiversity" might be helpful. Almost any of Gould's
collections of essays are excellent. The PBS series entitled "Evolution" is
extraordinarily good and is available through Netflix.