Any evidence that's contrary to creationism is either ignored, misrepresented or dismissed by creationists. That's not being 'arrogant' as some would accuse, but like it or not, just the way it is.
In the first place, stop using the strawman ":creationist". David Berlinski is an agnostic at best. Thomas Nagel is an atheist. Each of them doubts that Darwinism is true and each agrees that Neo-Darwinists have treated intellectual critics of Neo-Darwinism very shabbily. Evidence and arguments to the contrary of neo-Darwinism by intellectuals like Berlinksi, Meyer, Nagel, Tour and hundreds of others are real and they are the ones ignored, dismissed or misrepresented as yu have done repeatedly in this discussion (by your constant, insistent use of logical fallacies). What is ignored. misrepresented and caricatured are the arguments of intellectual doubters of Neo-Darwinism whose arguments Neo-Darwinists cannot effectively counter, as witnessed by their heavy reliance on fallacious arguments and caricatures.
