Well, this thread has hit most of the talking points from Jerry Coyne's book/lecture(s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1m4mATYoig#t=4m20s
Anyone who could demonstrate that there is something other than chemical/physical processes keeping cells working would win a Nobel prize, and such person would probably end up more famous than Einstein.
Whether we call cells "sentient" based on complex emergent behavior is a matter of semantics. Cells do what they do, and what named qualities we bestow upon them are arbitrary and do not change the behavior of cells one bit.
Nice lecture. You never see anything comparable to that from the creationist side, you never even see any refutation that has a comparable level of rigor.
The problem is these guys are so tired of fighting creationists they get snide about it. Most of the creationists on this board probably couldn't watch that lecture all the way through because they would get angry at the presentation, so it never gets a chance.
I do understand though, it must be incredibly frustrating to have your time taken up by defending yourself about something that is a simple fact.
----------------
There is a good way to educate people, but it is a long process. First, you have to seperate creationists into two groups. Group 1 consists of people who believe in creationism because of simple ignorance. Group 2 consists of those who are willfully ignorant and refuse to examine evidence or defend their belief.
For group 1, if you can get them to explain why they think evolution is wrong, and explain what it would take to convince them evolution is correct, you can get some work done. I've never heard anyone ask for evidence of evolution that I couldn't give, after they've been given a proper explanation about what evolution is. Once you get to that point the person gets to make a personal choice: Do they value creationism belief, or truth? If they pick truth then you're done. If they pick belief, they get put into group 2.
For group 2, there isn't much you can do. They will throw out the usual arguments against a straw-man view of evolution and then refuse debate. All you can do at that point is educate the people in group 1 and hope the group 2 minority eventually dies off or is influenced by peer pressure to accept truth.
Any creationists reading this will probably get upset at the above and think I'm being arrogant or insidious, but it really is that simple. I can *prove* evolution. Anyone can. Nothing else explains the diversity of life, nothing else explains the commonality of DNA, nothing else explains the fossil record, nothing else explains observed examples of change and outright speciation. There is no legitimate creationist argument that has not been answered, and creationism explains nothing about diversity, DNA, the fossil record or change and speciation.
People just need to choose: Truth, or belief?
