People eventually will (and mostly have) accepted evolution, the way they accepted the heliocentric view of the solar system, or the Galilean version of gravity. Science marches on, because people are fundamentally curious about the nature of the universe in which they live. A narrow, unscientific world view based on a moralistic story from the Bible does not satisfy that deep curiosity, nor does it provide any answers to the burning questions many of us have about the nature of the world and the universe.
The only reason that anti-scientific objections to evolution persist is that a bunch of charlatans are taking advantage of the poor state of science education in our schools to essentially sell nonsense. And yes, I do mean sell: Gish, Behe, especially Hovind, all get money from going around peddling anti-science.
Isn’t Hovind still in the slammer??
Please refute Behe by citing the scientific papers detailing the biochemical mechanisms 1) of evolution and 2) how certain biochemical mechanisms that Behe mentions actually evolved.
His charge is simply that you aren't doing your homework.
As far has making money on it goes, that is a standard democratic/leftist tactic. I am sure writing pro-evolution pieces is equally lucrative. Why the concern over having competing ideas? Isn't wanting to shut people up a little Orwellian?
Anyone who has studied statistics, probability and higher level mathematics, which I have, cannot take the theory of evolution seriously. Most liberals eschew those subjects and fall prey to things like globull warming and evolution. Nobody is saying the natural selection doesn't alter species over time, but that cannot explain the origins of species.
I am always suspicious of Free Republic posters that have their old democratic past in their name. Deep down there is an air of superiority in that " I was a democrat so I was cool once but now I am like you". That bothers me. If I was an ex dem I would hide that fact out of shame.