No, you misunderstood. You can convince me that evolution (MY evolution to use the terminology of the article) is true. I have no theological objection to the concept.
I strongly doubt that evolution (MY) occurs because I strongly doubt that it occurs. Lurking on these list makes me ever more certain. The questions posed anti-evolutionists -- I'll use that term since some of the evolutionists claim a belief in the Creator which makes them, ultimately, creationists -- usually seem to be answered by emotionally driven name-calling.
The other day someone posted an article by Michael J. Behe in which he felt compelled to defend his mousetrap analogy. Apparently, his opponents are resorting to attacking his method of communication rather than his science. Most embarrasingly for them is that they failed in even that.
So why can these animals interbreed? [Horses, donkeys, and zebras in one case, camels and llamas in another.] Is it a freakish evolutionary fluke or the result of an event popular science fails to recognize?
Freakish evolutionary fluke? What's freakish about finding recently speciated populations? Populations that haven't quite speciated completely? Evolution predicts this!
Cs fail to reason like a E, then try to beat Es over the head with their misunderstanding.
That Behe has to defend himself is not surprising. He left himself open to many different charges with his book, ignoring much of the research that contradicted his claims. In fact, one of his claims is that there was no research in molecular evolution. Ow!