Do I now (consciously choose not to investigate it)? This statement is quite unfounded, and, frankly, quite unsupportable. Actually, it is quite wrong! One of (probably the) main reason I've been at BioLogos is to investigate evidence for evolution (as I've formerly spent most of my efforts examining the evidence against it). The reason (or, one of the reasons) I ask people to list their evidence for evolution is because I like to cut to the chase, and hear what other people think is the best evidence for evolution, and then question them about it in an effort to learn more, and see if they are actually putting thought into what they say instead of echoing things they have read or been told (links etc.). And I have to give some of you good credit for doing that! Through my little questionings, I have found which of you are actually willing to defend your beliefs personally instead of giving me:
1. Here is a link (not always bad, sometimes very applicable)
2. Google it (The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming. A simple google search could yield beginner information about what Evolution is and how it works. [I rest my case. And yes, I have done some research into evolution, but there is always more to learn. See large paragraph below for details...])
3. Unenlightened YEC (I don't get this much [and certainly not verbatim])
I have also determined which of you are actually worthy of holding out a discussion with (and, against my better judgement, I sometimes hold out a discussion with members of the opposite category)...So, in the end, I seek to investigate the evidences, but I prefer to do by holding intelligent dialogue with a person (a real person, even if the dialogue is enacted by punching keys on a machine), than by reading a seemingly monolithic (and quite tiring to my already academics weary mental capacities) article etc. Not to say that all my conversations here have been bad (for some have been quite fascinating and insightful, and others have significantly helped broaden my intellectual horizons)!
You want to pretend it doesn't exist because it threatens your faith and worldview.
I would not consider evolution (that is, macroevolution) even close to reliable enough to threaten my worldview, and it (evolution) will never be strong enough to threaten my faith! I am not "pretending" that it does not exist. In fact, I think the science behind the theory of microevolution is very strong! Microevolution does not pose any problem at all to the scriptures (and neither does heliocentrism, @T_Aquaticus [jury's still out as to whether or not I'm spelling that correctly...).
Furthermore, I am not pretending that there is no such thing as a theory of Macroevolution which most scientists believe in that seems to contradict the Bible (and still seems to, despite BioLogos's efforts). In order to see how well EC holds up, don't you think I'm going to test its scientific, philosophical, and last, but by far the most serious, theological implications to the limits? I like to see how far something holds up before I consider accepting it as fact.
The truth can be distasteful as others have stated here
Indeed it can. However, we have YEC, and the EC spectrum...only one can be true, or we are both wrong. With this statement, you seem to imply that EC is the undeniable truth, or, that it is not (so it cannot be) wrong. Do you possess an open mind on this issue? Is it worth my effort to discuss this issues with you? I guess, if you aren't willing to look outside your box, that is your choice.
"On Christ the Solid Rock I stand. All other ground is sinking sand."