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.
I wasn't talking about any particular individual. I am talking about creationism as opposed natural evolution. Anyone who argues against natural evolution in favour of creation is arguing for creation over evolution.
Of course they may not be genuine. They may be arguing to gain notoriety, amusement or whatever else....however, it remains that they are arguing for creation over evolution, and that is what is being addressed.
I'm sorry. I mean no offense, but are you really that stupid? Any criticism of Neo-Darwinism is not, ipso facto, "creationism". Thomas Nagel is an atheist. He doubts that evolution can account for the instantiation of or increase in information necessary to either originate life or alter morphology. His doubts and criticisms do not mean he is a 6 day biblical literalist or that he thinks the only viable alternate theory is intelligent design. It is entirely possible that some modification of the theory of random mutation and natural selection might suffice to endow some form or evolutionary theory with the power to create the necessary information. If such a theory were ever developed and if it was fully naturalistic, it would not involve recourse to a supreme intelligence and therefore would not rely on "creation" broadly speaking. Secondarily, if the inference from the best explanation (which is the logical construct Darwin used) now shows that the information necessary to instantiate life and transform morphology could only have come from a designing mind (an intelligence). It would certainly imply the existence of a creator (Francis Crick hypothecates aliens/panspermia. That is "intelligence" but is certainly not God. (In his book the Selfish Gene Richard Dawkins effectively argues for intelligent creation [though he's too stupid to understand that such is the logical implication of his gene fitness theory] but surely he is not a "creationist"). Neither Crick or Dawkins's theories necessarily imply the existence of God even though they are broadly "creationist". In any event, if the inference to the best explanation tends to show the Universe and all life was the product of a pre-existing intelligence who might reasonably be called God, what is wrong with that? If that is where the evidence leads should we not embrace that truth, if in fact it is. You can caricature it as "creationism" if you want, which it broadly is (though not 6-day biblical literalism) but if that is where the truth leads, what is wrong with that? If you are going to argue effectively you need to start using language with a little precision.
Finally, your statement "anyone who argues against natural evolution in favor of creation is arguing for creation over evolution" is simply a tautology. It is an utterly meaningless statement. And again, the appropriate response is "so what"? If that's where the evidence leads why not go there?
