> only an immovable and unquestionable a priori assumption (something pete accuses people like me of)

Freud calls it "projection."

Freud, of course, was a theorist, not a scientist. The bible, however, seems to concur in the line about not seeing the beam in your own eye.

But you don't need to be a scientist or a theologian to see projection at work every day.

Since no mainstream Christian denomination requires belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis, Pete should consider whether his determination to disprove thye facts of evolution (which would make him smarter than, say, Darwin, Dawkins, and Gould combined) really is a Sin of Pride, a sin that might be shared with other creationists.

If he thinks there's any chance that it is, it might be wise for him to stop now. And if not, why not?