Controversial Topic Discussion

I am confused by your post. It seems to me to be a form of compartmentalization. You stated that you know that evolution occurs. You are a scientist, and therefor, obviously understand that the ToE is an extrapolation of what you know occurs (evolution) across geological time frames. Aside from being a logical extrapolation, common descent itself is backed by loads of evidence. I am sure you are familiar with the fossil record, analogous and vestigial structures, and from your particular field redundant pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses. These examples are only scratching the surface of the wealth of evidences for common descent. The fact that the discovery of most of the evidences have come after the ToE was proposed, and accurately meet predictions, only serves to solidify its validity. There is also the otherwise inexplicable consilience of so many independent fields of research all coming together and fitting so precisely into the ToE. It is simply too amazingly well supported to be dismissed. The ToE is nothing other than the only explanation, supported by any evidence whatsoever, for the wide variety of life we see on the planet today. It seems to me that the only way a man of science, such as yourself, can hold that evolution is true but the ToE might not be is to simply decide to believe one and not the other, regardless of the evidence.

I'm also confused as to what you mean by a 'missing link'. The term refers to something that does not exist. This missing link notion was discarded long ago. There is a fairly comprehensive picture of the history of human evolution in the fossil record. It is nothing short of amazing that we have as accurate a picture as we do. You, of course, realize that evolution is not a direct line from point A to B to C etc... where we say Australopithecus africanus turned into Homo habilis turned into Homo erectus turned into Homo sapiens, like one link of a chain connects to the next. It is a process of a species emerging from an existent species most likely due to factors such as isolated segments of the population experiencing different environmental pressures. This creates a nonlinear type of 'progression' that does not make possible the type of linear linking one is asking for when expecting a missing link to be produced from the fossil record.

I am, as well, one of those who holds science and religion at odds with each other. To me the problem is that science is the means by which we discover the nature of reality and religion is the projection of ourselves onto that reality. I can not reserve for religion some little niche of my mind in which I arbitrarily decide to place beliefs I do not hold up to the same burden of rational justification I require of all other beliefs. Faith requires such a niche as it is an excuse for holding to un-evidenced beliefs. I hate contradicting old Einstein as he was brilliant in his field, but religion can add nothing to science and science is only corrupted by religion. If one wishes to hold to religion on faith that's fine with me. But, it is always best to realize that faith has no ability to discern between truth and fiction, reality and imagination. That is the job of science.