I sure don't. Whenever overwhelming evidence conflicts with religious precept a significant number will reject the former in order to retain the latter.
Two glaring flaws in that statement:
1) Evolution and creation share the same evidence. Therefore if it is overwhelming evidence, it is also overwhelming for creation. It is the interpretation of that evidence that is in question.
2) Evolution isn't rejected just because it conflicts with the Genesis account. Evolution is rejected because it is bad science, bad logic and not even very good story telling. This is not just the opinion of evolutionists, but a few creationists as well:
| We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin |