I am beginning a series called Bad Evolutionary Arguments Refuted. The acronym BEAR is sufficiently awesome that it requires no further fanfare.
This is the explanation post for the series. Every post will examine a different bad evolutionary argument, mostly from the standpoint of naturalism. That is, I will grant most of the time the presupposition of naturalism, thereby granting huge swaths of rhetorical ground that I don't in reality grant at all and thereby tying both hands and one foot behind my back to see how the evolutionary position fares when everything is going its way. The BEAR series is a mostly an internal critique of naturalism.
All BEAR posts will be under the label BEAR, and all of them can be organised into an exclusive view here.
I of course welcome all interaction, but evolutionists - you do yourself few favors trying to defend these bad arguments. I recommend you come up with better ones.