Evolution is a fact.

The theory of evolution is a theory.

The two are related, but not identical. Hence your claim about dogmatism is off the mark.

Comments like Mr. Carlton’s display a complete lack of understanding of what science is … or religion, for that matter.

Closed-minded dogmatism that refuses to acknowledge that a theory is a theory shows exactly why it is a religion.

It's amusing how zealots from the religion of Relativity seem to think their religion can be proved by calling anti-Einsteinians names. Yeah, that's science.

Or how about math? What's up with this dogmatism about "2 + 2 = 4"? Can't we entertain other points of view?

Comments like Mr. Carlton's display a complete lack of understanding of what science is ... or religion, for that matter.

It’s amusing how zealots from the religion of Evolution seem to think their religion can be proven by calling Creationists names. Yeah, that’s science.

What names?

The ten questions are definitely legitimate, and closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and shouting, “LA LA LA” won’t change that.

Let me see. I read all the questions, answered three of them, and this is putting my fingers in my ears and shouting "LA LA LA"? Okay. Thanks for playing: I'm commenting but I don't have a point.

Why isn’t it reasonable scientific inquiry to ask why there are almost no transitional forms within the fossil record?

Because there are lots of transitional fossils in the fossil record? That would be my first answer. Look at the early mammal like reptiles and you'll see similarities and fossils that are pretty good candidates for transitionary fossils.

If we postulate that incremental species change has occurred throughout the past then the fossil record should reflect it.

And it does, but there are gaps. However, the gaps are to be expected since fossil formation is not something that happens with great regularity. You need certain conditions, starting with the animal that is going to be fossilized dying in the right location (e.g. a stream bed).

There should be millions of transitional species. Why are they not there?

There are transitional fossils, maybe not millions (this bar is way to high, it is irrational) but there are lots of them. Have you actually gone to TalkOrigins.org and read their articles/essays on transitional fossils?

If we postulate that incremental species change has occurred throughout the past then the fossil record should reflect it. There should be millions of transitional species. Why are they not there?

The ten questions are definitely legitimate, and closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and shouting, "LA LA LA" won't change that. Those darn kids that have decided to think for themselves will still challenge your religion.

As a non-religious, non-creationist, I am increasingly dumbfounded by the intransigence shown by evolutionists in their refusal to entertain legitimate scientific inquiry.

Maybe because Creationism doesn't present any scientific challenges/inquiry. Creationism, which includes intelligent design, is about religion based "science" and trying to tear down the current theory. The people who engage in the last one seem to think that if evolution is torn down Creationism wins by default.

There is actual controversy in evolutionary theory, but oddly enough it deals with evolution...not magic, superstition, and an unknown designer (well actually we all know the designer is the Christian God, the IDists just don't have the balls to admit it).

http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2005/05/quantum_theory_.html

As a non-religious, non-creationist, I am increasingly dumbfounded by the intransigence shown by evolutionists in their refusal to entertain legitimate scientific inquiry.

The more I read about the concept of random mutation, the more I wonder if evolution isn't the theology.

Have you had an anthropology class?

Shoot just go watch Fantasia-there is a nice segment without any words, just pictures (and I realize it isn't "science" but my point is that it is that kind of stuff that does tie it all up together and make them the same thing, and it is all over science, ecucational and other disciplines films).

And it is mainly that watch any movie/science show and the two are tied together, and the stuff is presented as if all the issues/questions regarding evolution and abiogenesis have been answered.

I'd like to know where this is occurring. The science surrounding abiogenesis is very uncertain. The science surrounding evolution is much, much more fleshed out and sound.

So essentially, since abiogensis and evolution are tied together so closely, in what our kids are presented with in school, and everything is presented as if all the answers are known, asking the questions seem pretty fair.

No I don't think so. Saying the science is still rather uncertain with regards to abiogenesis is one thing. Extrapolating from that position that evolution is also in doubt is pseudo-science.

Some More Observed Speciation Events

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

(Homepage given above)

Ring Species: Unusual Demonstrations of Speciation

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

from

Action Bioscience.Org

http://www.actionbioscience.org/

The Evolution Evidence Page (homepage for website)

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

from

GCSSEPM Special Interests

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/

Today, anyone with a connection to the internet who knows how to use Google can find plenty of evidence for macroevolution without much work.

A bit of advice: you are going to find polite people who are curious about whether there is any evidence for macroevolution, or for the evolution of so-called irreducibly complex features of life, etc.. Such people should be taken at face value -- they are hoping that someone in a forum knows a little more than they do about a given topic and will have the information readily available.

As for people who argue that there is no evidence for one or another aspect of evolutionary theory, the most polite interpretation, particularly in the age of the internet -- is that they simply haven't looked. In either case, it is a good idea to have a collection of links to post -- readily available -- which includes a variety of websites. For macroevolution, you might want to start with the list I gave above, order and add to it as you see fit, and remove links when you find better ones.

Then when either kind of post appears, you are ready to provide some pretty impressive information. Oftentimes, when responding to some Young Earth Creationist, Old Earth Creationist, or advocate of one or another form of Intelligent Design Theory, writers will only have the time or space to cover the broad principles, if that. They won't have the time or space to provide a good number of examples of the evidence. But if you have some links handy, you can quickly remedy that.

Incidentally, by all means, not all evolutionists are atheists. A good number are religious, but they do not permit their religious views to interfere with the quest for empirical knowledge. Here is one good example:

"Science and Religion" interview with Kenneth R. Miller

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.html