Humans did not evolve from monkeys nor from apes. It is more accurate to say that humans and these organisms share common ancestors, with those common ancestors being more recent in the case of apes than in the case of monkeys. The same with protozoa. Modern protozoa and humans and monkeys share common ancestors in the far distant past. The same is true with all life on Earth (presumably) if you go back far enough. This is a subtle point that can be easily overlooked. Modern organisms did not evolve from each other, but from ancestors that were shared between each other at different points in life's history. That said, monkeys retain more characteristics of the common ancestor they share with us than do we. This is not to say, however, that we are more evolved, as that implies an inherent progressiveness to evolution that really is not necessarily so.

1. I believe my recommendation was to go to the biology primary literature section of a university library to see the sheer volume of research that has been done into evolution in the past nearly 150 years since Darwin published the first edition of "The Origin" (which, by the way to those who might be reading, evolutionary biologists do not regard as an infallible text, but merely a foundational text discussing and presenting the first iteration of very important ideas). I did not mean to imply that you were not at a university.

I don't recall using the word "proven" in my previous postings. I try to avoid that word. I prefer terms such as "rejection of the null hypothesis" or "supported" and so on. Evolutionary theory has been refined greatly and will continue to be refined. No, it can never be "proven", and few scientists would say such a thing. However, billions of individual observations over the years have supported and informed the tenants of evolutionary theory, and it seems to be substantially correct as a way of explaining the living world and its origins. You seem to be putting out the idea that intelligent design is a viable option to evolutionary theory. Well, not really. Much of ID is pseudo-intellectual flim flam with very little going for it. It doesn't help that ID advocates routinely ignore what evolutionary theory actually holds, rather than setting up and attacking straw men with no semblance of reality. On top of this, ID was what was rejected in favor of evolutionary theory. Much of "The Origin" is a detailing of how the living world just doesn't make much sense in the light of the ID of the time. Granted, you can use all sorts of intellectual gymnastics to make ID fit the living world, but you could do that with any idea. Heck, I could figure out a way of explaining all of nature as having resulted from Smurf excrement. Every time an inconvenient fact comes along, I would just modify the argument, or else (as in ID quite often) make it so fuzzy that there is no way of finding a fact that could possibly contradict it. Philosophically, this could be justified. True, and I will agree, philosophically, there is no basis to reject the idea that Zeus Almighty, Father of Gods and Men, created the universe as it is just miliseconds ago, but you have to admit that such an argument is rather unfulfilling. If the leap of faith you referred to went to refusing to believe such a thing to be a viable possibility, then yes, I think I would agree.

In any case, please don't see any of this as being condescending or angry. I don't mean to come across that way. This has been a pleasant discussion, and I wish you well, even if I don't agree with you.

Now that you put it like that, I think we are in agreement. I have no problem with ID having a place as a philosophy or religious belief so long as it isn't put forth as science. As for Huckabee, so long as his support for ID is not support for it being put forth as science, then you are certainly correct that it is not grounds for complaint or attack. Are you familiar with Simon Conway Morris, by the way? I think you might find his book "Life's Solution" interesting. Basically, he manages to find a way to make his religious ideas about the origin of the universe consonant with his scientific views and work by his god having created the universe with the laws of nature such as to code life of the sort we see into the system. I don't agree with him, but it is an interesting idea.

I think the problem you are running into is that the typical person who tries to make the argument you are making almost inevitably follows with the illogical leap to "therefore evolution is false and you must convert to my belief system". I don't think you would have gotten the push-back you have seen had you made clear you were not of that ilk. In this area people are more likely to listen to an argument if they don't think it is coming from someone who is looking for an opportunity to ram their religious beliefs down another's throat. I don't think you are one of those unpleasant folks, though (just to make it clear).