It is certainly helpful that you provide a link to your own pages! I encourage you to include your link in your profile page. But let’s turn to what you actually say. Here is a key section you write on Theists and Evolution:
“The problem is that for people who believe in a theistic origin of our existence, arguments against evolution are attacking a strength of explanations based on natural processes rather than a vulnerability. Evolution sounds logical. Everyone knows that things—airplanes for example—develop over time. Evolution unquestionably works within the higher branches of the “family tree” of life, for example different breeds of dogs. It seems reasonable that it might also explain larger differences between species that are much farther apart, for example dogs and dinosaurs.”
[^^^ looking good! You appear to be affirming that Dogs and Dinosaurs share a common Evolutionary ancestor!]
"There is honestly a tremendous amount of data that supports the theory of evolution. None of it is totally conclusive, but the huge quantities distract attention from the qualitative weaknesses. Most people—religious or not—do not have the educational background to discuss the weaknesses. "
[^^^ But here is where you start stirring things up … and I’m not quite sure where you are going…]
“Therefore most dialogues about evolution are either arguments among fools…”
[^^^ So… here is that ‘lack of civility’ that I expected to find in your writing … as the source of your projection that I am the one without civility … it’s been many years since I have insisted that everyone who criticizes me are fools…]
“… or foolish arguments by people of religious faith against more knowledgeable people who believe in evolution.”
So… my assessment is that your pages have been forged in the intense heat of “Atheism vs. Intelligent Design” ! But I see no realistic attempt to grapple with the complexities that BioLogos wrestles with.
Your focus on the very spark of life - the moment of the first living thing is all very good… but then you throw it all away by spinning around and around on the idea that this ‘moment of first life’ proves that there is no use for Evolutionary science. This is, of course, in error.
Creation is amazing enough to justify the heart of the I.D. movement, but you don’t seem able to embrace the idea that BioLogos is really the blessed child of the I.D. movement! It acknowledges that the general arc of Creation is amazing enough that we accept God’s role in that general arc. But within the arc, there are enough flaws and weaknesses, all in scientifically demonstrable ages involving millions of years, that we must also embrace the reality that God’s creation also embraces the evolutionary principles of Natural Selection.
Another participant on this board talks about letting go of your “pound of flesh” - - and he is right. As long as you continue to hint, imply or specify that YEC is the foundation of your position, you are on the wrong track. Creation is not so perfect that it can prove the Earth is less than 10,000 years of age.
You must surrender your pound of flesh … and embrace the complexity of a God-guided evolution that requires millions of years of God’s providential work!