Near as I can tell, you're the one who's chucking popular opinion around.
I think you need to read your own posts a little more clearly, Bob. You're the one who keeps going back to what scientists currently think -- as opposed to what scientists have previously proven.
Since when are peer reviewed scientific journals "popular opinion" as opposed to evaluated research and comment? If these things were "popular opinion," you might even be able to get away with the sort of statements you're trying to get away with here. In a peer reviewed scientific journal, you'd have to convince a bunch of other folks who understood the field and what you were talking about about the validity of your opinion first. It's not always easy. Even Einstein had to do a bit of hunting for his initial publications in peer reviewed journals. He found them.
For you to suggest this is a popularity contest is a distortion 1) of what I said; and 2), the facts as well. The popularity contest seems to be going the other direction since there seems to be a mysterious lack of educational funding for science these days, and the religious right wants equal time for discussion of religious theory in science class, as though it actually had a place there.
You seem to be in a hurry to skip over what scientists have already proven. You conflate creation with speciation, for example. Evolution may talk about how one species may move into another, and about how larger shifts may occur, but I can't recall Darwin insisting on any scenarios for creation. Perhaps my memory has developed Brain Fog. Species, yes, creation, not so much as I recall, though I stand ready for correction. I suspect that Darwin didn't actually believe in Divine Creation, mind you, but I don't think that he made that party of his position on evolution. I think he tried to stay neutral, though he didn't really fool many people about his more general air of skepticism.
I asked about whether there was any hard science coming out of the laboratories of those people who claimed to be scientists who were researching any of those theories which were competing with evolution.
I must have missed the query, Bob. I didn't know we were talking about other, competing theories. In any event, I fail to see how any lack of hard evidence for theories competing with evolution is going to produce any hard evidence FOR evolution?
Much as I would like to dispose of any theories you advance by disposing of statements you haven't made on subjects that haven't come up as well, I do try to avoid it. I don't know that I've abstained entirely, but I have tried.
I haven't for example, made any statements about creation science (there's an oxymoron for you) being responsible for proving evolution. I have to confess, I was somewhat thrilled to have been put in that position by you, but no; actually I didn't mention evolution in that regard at all. I simply suggested that it would be a good thing if any of their evolutionary research or research into hard science based on their discoveries in creation science had ever been used to produce any practical science — based on their scientific research in creation science, of course. Not in Evolution — heavens to Betsy, no. In any hard science.
I actually spent some time listing some of them above, in case you might have misunderstood me. I suggested but did not intend to limit myself to:
any breakthroughs on the basis of this line of thinking on, say, gravitation, or quantum physics, or metallurgy or the photoelectric effect or mining technology, I would be happy to see it. And also to see the science it was developed from, and see what the predictions are from from the work that developed it.
Wanting to offer you the widest possible latitude for a response, I didn't want to limit you to responding with discoveries in hard science that might pass a generally accepted peer reviewed science journal such as Science or Nature only in areas of biology or evolution, but which might get by such journals in other sciences as well. General Archives of Psychiatry would have been fine with me, and still is, as long as the research comes from the hard research that these Creation Scientists are putting into Creation Science and its spin-offs.
Or even the reverse, where experiments in other field of science lead to experiments in another field, as apparently did the Urey-Miller experiments come from looking over earlier experimental data in another field entirely.
This single-minded self-absorbtion and self-referential thinking is one of the things that tends to distinguish real science from what you call pseudo science, isn't it? Hard science has spin-offs, and people follow them from say, Special Relativity, to General Relativity, to String Theory and the increasingly more arcane experimental technology that seems to be gathering around these areas. Except in Creation Science, of course, which seems to try to go over the same ground, again and again, looking for new and interesting ways to destroy the wheel.