[Tribune7]

No one but a scientific moron can possibly refute the reality of evolution as the method used by the Almighty to create physical bodies.

I haven't claimed to refute evolution. I said I am skeptical of it. On the other hand, there are those who are literally refuting evolution most notably Michael Behe with his theory of irreducible complexity. He theory has been assailed and is holding up. His detractors are resorting to sputtering and name calling -- rather than calm, quiet rebuttal -- which is a strong indication that he is going to win the argument.

Belief in the Bible and God, and belief in Evolution,

My personal view is that one can be a Christian and believe in macro-evolution. I am beginning to have doubts that one can be a man of science and do so, however. :-)

[ZULU]

I don't know who Mr. Behe is and he may be great at debating and twisting logic. So are a lot attorneys. That doesn't necessarily make their clients innocent.

The preponderance of fossil evidence for the evolution of horses, whales, and other animals is overwhelming. So too, in my mind, is the evidence for the evolution of the human body as well as that of lower primates. I can't see how anyone can possible challenge this. Pointing out flaws in our interpretation of that data does not necessarily translate into a rejection of the entire concept.

[jejones]

On the other hand, there are those who are literally refuting evolution most notably Michael Behe with his theory of irreducible complexity. He theory has been assailed and is holding up. His detractors are resorting to sputtering and name calling -- rather than calm, quiet rebuttal -- which is a strong indication that he is going to win the argument.

Could've fooled me; I just looked up a talk.origins archive article on "irreducible complexity" and saw no sputtering or name calling, but rather precisely the calm, quiet rebuttal you seem to think doesn't exist.