The differences between Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens are quite large...enough (as shown by the names) to qualify as each an entirely different species. Transitional forms between them...showing direct lineage are absent; quite a different matter than the existance of dinosaurs.
Your logic about evolution is fine, but based on a whole lot of assumptions.
Interestingly the USA and England have some of the most fundamentalist Darwinists in the world. Places in the developed world which are MORE secular, with almost no fundamentalist Christians, like France and Germany, have more scientists who openly question strict Darwinism today. Your theory blaming Christians is bogus.
Your logic about evolution is fine, but based on a whole lot of assumptions.
Perhaps Homo habilis is a transitional fossil???
It is between the Australopithecines and H. erectus.
And your statement about assumptions...is based on an assumption. You give yourself away with statements like "most fundamentalist Darwinists in the world" and "strict Darwinism."
The only people I see using these terms are predisposed to ignore or discount any evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution--and there is a lot.
Actually, the intergrading of the hominid series tends to make a mockery of the sort of bin-lawyering you attempt. The later australopithecines are considerably advanced over the early ones and there is considerable dispute over the dividing line between them and the earliest of genus Homo, the habilines.
There are some disputed species, (e.g. rudolphensis) between the later habilines and erectus/ergaster, ergaster itself being a disputed classification. Some of the later skulls (Atapuerca in Spain particularly) are thought to show "incipient" neanderthal characters, etc.
What you're doing is just "bin-lawyering." Everything taxonomically lumped in Bin A is "An 'A,' just an 'A!'"
For a fine deconstruction of such obscurantist tactics, click here.