Thank you so very much, Cole.

FK, these articles are so tiring, not necessarily from you, so forgive my vehemence, but in general.  Congratulations, the opinion of one scientist, speaking outside of his specialty, obviously negates the opinion of HUNDREDS of others.  Please.  You want an opinion on a scientific topic, speak with a specialist, in this case, a Biologist, specifically an Evolutionary Biologist.  Speaking outside your specialty?  Frowned upon in the scientific community.  You can have an opinion of course, but that doesn't make you right.  The VAST majority of the scientific community no longer feels the need to even DISCUSS whether or not Evolution by means of Natural Selection is valid model.  This is one area where you will not out-debate me, my friend, hate to say it.  I would wager that you haven't spent even a small FRACTION of the amount of time or money that I've invested into the exploration of this topic.  I wouldn't be on this forum, or anywhere else espousing such strong opinions on the matter without having done so.

This guy's opinions on the matter are manifestly oversimplified and platitudinous.  Being a scientist does not make you an authority in all branches of science, and his logical failures in this arena are clear enough.

 "I share Pascal’s frustration. Wouldn’t it have been wonderful if, when scientists had obtained the first molecular resolution images of human DNA, it had self-assembled (a thermodynamic process) into the Hebrew script to say, “The God of Heaven and Earth was here.”?? But it did not, and I suppose that the wonder would have elicited no love from the skeptic anyway. Therefore, God seems to have set nature as a clue, not a solution, to keep us yearning for him."

'I can't explain it, so clearly it's a mystery, and obviously must be God'.  This is the most un-scientific approach available, and it's startling that more than one scientist embraces it on the matter at hand.  Scary what childhood brainwashing can accomplish.  But then, even scientists are human after all, I suppose.  

You want to prove a god, you need evidence.  So far there is pretty much none at all.  The same goes for Evolution by Natural Selection, except for that, there is a veritable MOUNTAIN of evidence, some people have just decided that they want every single hole filled before they can accept it.  That's fine.  So for every dinosaur that doesn't have a 100% complete skeleton available, we'll just deny they ever existed at all, because we don't have ALL of the evidence.  That makes sense, right?

He fully supports micro-evolution, but balks at the thought of macro-evolution?  Well sir, it's apparent that you have very little imagination.  If you can't extrapolate macro-evolution from micro-evolution, I'm afraid that your intellectual faculties are sadly limited.  Go ahead and pull the nonsense about the eye.  And the moment you do, you'll be disqualified, as those of us who understand the conversation are intimately aware that they eye has evolved independently NUMEROUS times.  Yes, on any such basis, you are EXCUSED.

You want to debate FK, I'm happy to do so.  I ceded ground to you on the climate debate, but you've caught me in my area of expertise here.  You'll have a ferocious battle ahead of you if you want to argue this one.

Evolution is just a theory.  Like Gravity.  Try testing that one first.

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

"Human decency is not derived from religion, it precedes it."

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I'm still waiting to hear their point."

-Christopher Hitchens