OK, lets review the facts that have gotten you all worked up.
1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.
Now, those are facts. You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.
You are wrong about 3. Through his scientific research, he has questioned the ability of genetic mutation to be strong enough to have caused evolution. This is not even remotely related to "evidence of a creator". It doesn't address the question of a creator in any way whatsoever. ...how many years will it take you to realize that any miniscule evidence that questions the veracity of evolution is NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.....evidence of a creator. There was no evidence in any of his scientific research (none of it had anything to do with evolution) that a creator exists. There was not even any evidence that mutation is insufficient.1.Man was an atheist, who accepted evolutionary thinking (well, what choice does an atheist have there?).
3.He is internationally know for his path-breaking neurophysiology research (more than can be said for the three of us, eh?)
2.He notes that, through his scientific research, he has come to see that there is a Creator God.
Now, those are facts. You make take issue with some other things here, but, those are clearly the facts here.
By the way...we have long known mutation alone is insufficient. He didn't learn anything new.
If you believe he found evidence of creationism, please point it out to us in any of this gentleman's studies and let's discuss it.
