And you know what insults God how?
In my view, God is insulted when people don't use their god-given gifts such as their brains to solve his mysteries.
The difference between the theory of evolution and creationism is that the former is a science, the latter is a dogma.
If you are intellectually honest you will admit the following. One of the things that scientists get the biggest kick out of is to disprove an existing theory. They are constantly testing and probing its limits. If they find new evidence that disproves a long held theory they are often rewarded with a Nobel prize because such a discovery usually enhances man's understanding of nature. (e.g. Einstein's theory of relativity, supplanting Newtons theories, and today String theorists are trying to supplant Einstein). So generally speaking scientists are more than eager to embrace a new theory if experiments or observations prove it superior to the old. There's no faith or religious attachment to a theory.
The same cannot be said of creationists. They (unlike scientists) don't eagerly look for data that might disprove their theory. Rather they feel threathned by such findings and look only for data that supports their views. Whereas scientists would have no problem changing or completely dumping a theory (such as evolution) if the facts justified it, creationists would never do such a thing. This is because creationism is faith and not science.
No the latter is not dogma. Christian scripture arrives as a revelation from Prophets through whom God has spoken to man. So to say it is merely Dogma is to mistate the record.
The same cannot be said of creationists. They (unlike scientists) don't eagerly look for data that might disprove their theory. Rather they feel threathned by such findings and look only for data that supports their views.
Now you've shown that you've drank the koolaid. Everything researched in science by non-Christians and by many who call themselves christian is done in light of evolution - everything. Facts are only worthwhile if they support evolution. If they don't, they tend to disappear or be judged as (contaminated, abberant, etc). And it isn't as though one needs look very far to find flagrant examples. Deep coal deposites. Yep, everyone in your camp is probably on the defensive now and ready to use the word "contamination". I'm sure they're not prepared to explain man made objects found in deep coal deposits ROFL. Must be contamination as well - which is why it was embedded in the deposits. Right. Dirty little creationists using transporters to beam objects into coal deposits - oops, transporters don't exist. And the carbon levels are screwin up our lie. Time for a cover story. Have some more koolaid and the headache from the truth might go away - maybe.