What has evolution theory produced?

Looks to me as if you are the liar. See below. Well, perhaps they've known what speciation is, but as late as the 1940's many were denying that it ever happened, as I pointed out in this message ... and I included my reference. That's the second time I've seen you claim this, but you haven't provided the reference in either of the threads in which you've made this claim. Looks to me as if you're lying. Please provide a link to the place where you've previously provided this reference.

OK, then please do so. Your post did not address the issue. You claimed that "Educated Creationists have known about speciation for over 200 years." Showing that one creationist believed in speciation does not support your claim; you need to present some survey of creationist beliefs over the last 200 years.I pointed out that "educated" creationists were denying any speciation, however you want to define it, as late as the 1940's, with a reference, twice. Your claim is falsified by that reference ... unless you want to show why that reference is wrong.If what you posted is your "previously provided reference", it's sadly lacking.

Well, he used the plural "creationists" in his claim, so an example of one creationist is obviously insufficient."Known about" is a poorly chosen vague phrase; it could mean many things, from being aware that some people believe that there could be such a thing as speciation to explicitly accepting the fact that speciation happens in the lab and in the wild.The sentence "Educated Creationists have known about speciation for over 200 years" is poorly worded; he should have included a quantitative modifier such as "One or two" or "A few" or "Most" or "All" at the beginnning of the sentence.It appears to me, from context, that he means "All educated Creationists have accepted that speciation occurs, for over 200 years."Then, of course, the question of "What's an educated creationist?" arises. I suspect that JP defines an educated creationist as one who accepted that speciation occurs, making his claim a trivial tautology.Assuming for the moment that he does not define "educated creationist" thusly, to support his claim he needs to come up with some definition of "educated creationist" and supply measurements or plausible arguments that support the idea that EC's have accepted speciation. Note that "It's stupid to deny speciation" is not a plausible argument; there is no argument so stupid that no creationists endorse it, and speciation is deied by many today (many of whom appear to be poorly educated).The passages from Numbers that I quoted in this message present some difficulties for him doing that.