"I have not read dawkins et al books, but there is a good chance that I have read/viewed more of it than you have of creation.
and why should I read it ?"

Because you might learn something you don't want to know?

If you think I'm going to expend good effort producing chapter and verse on evolutionary biology just so that you can shout "oh no it isn't!" you've got another think coming! I've seen the way you respond to people like Stu and sciencegeek. You don't hear a word they say because you've made up your mind already - on the basis of rubbish churned out by a small minority of close-minded religious fanatics.

Oh yes (for the second time), if scientists make assumptions about the 'unobservable' they are just plain wrong ... but if biblical fundamentalists do so, that's OK because they have something called 'faith'? Have I got that right?

Remember that anyone can assert that they have 'faith' i.e. claim that they unquestioningly believe in something invisible for which there is no evidence. But to be a scientist you have to train bloody hard for years and you have to have above average intelligence, imagination, a disciplined approach to your work and an open mind. So who am I most likely to believe: a real scientist or a religious nutter ... who has faith?