I understand what you are saying. And many times I will find an original link from AiG or CMI to read it, and then I will read what the creationist paper has to say about it also. It depends on my personal knowledge of the subject. Sometimes the creationist will bring up a fact that I never knew and that the evo does not address. They are also usually up to date with current data and new finds.
I know what you are saying, but I try and find a more neutral stance as far as the links. The accusations can fly both ways when clearly specific bias of a site is used by either side.
The problem I have is that there are so many branches of science. It's hard to address all the different issues and questions that uniform/ evo academia throws out there. Evolution is a given even in their journal papers. Ratified as fact in their minds. So it's nice to have an intelligent scientist somewhere who is looking from 'the other side.' Especially in fields (like physics and math for me) that I'm weak in.
That's a good thing if you have been given wisdom to apply that knowledge to modern science and be able to communicate it. Go for it!
One thing that has helped me is using the bible as a touchstone or foundational base for understanding what I read that is out there. One important aspect of posting and public speaking for me is to put things into simple easy to understand terms/words.
You mean a mechanism--the great mystery. They gloss over everything with selection and unguided mutation. While I see the principles of selection in biology, it seems they easily ignore design principles such as the working purpose of biological components, orderly systems, the integrated, interdependent characterization of ecology and biology, and the cyclic chemo-mechanical activity of the cell.
I understand the principals as well, but the motivation and reasons behind what it supposedly does and the official definitions of how it does (if that makes sense) are what are confusing.
Where I have to be careful is the "naturalism" of evolutionary science. While reason is God given--it is not all knowing. It sees "through a glass darkly." The subject of origins is historical science, an attempt to use present data to account for the past. Of course both evos and creationists are fitting data into a larger general model, and so the little "arm hypotheses" can be falsified, while keeping the general model in tact.
But I really try and use different terminologies when it comes to changes. I mean that word is clearly such a holy word for them and really, I always feel I need a shower when using some of their terms.Ã‚Â
My point is that it can tend to insulate from direct evidence of a Creator--by virtue of bracketing Him into another category. Either religion, superstition, the supernatural, pseudoscience, or metaphysics. None of these 'subjects' does Him justice.
While I understand that God is not empirical, there is evidence for him. Intelligent design is just one--Biblically it is to be a witness to all men, whether they know him personally or not.