I'll frame my response by offering a quote from a web page related to the Lucy fossil (and applies to both sides):
Quote: "Everyone...is entitled to their beliefs, but once belief supercedes evidence, a dangerous ground is encroached."
What I found interesting:
Your methodology in rationally refuting famous fossils is quite sound, and I applaud you for asking questions. After poking around a bit (just on the 'net, no books--wish I had more time) I found some inconsistencies in your narrative. Please keep in mind these are cursory searches I've performed and don't claim them to be the end-all.
Your assertions about Dubois appear to not take intoaccount all sides of the story. Alluding to the idea that he may have altered the skull won't influence anyone either, as it lacks credibility.
Your reliance on fossils as the primary method of disproving evolution assumes that everyone agrees on every significant fossil discovery. Numerous searches on the "Taung Child" didn't reveal the conclusions you claim in your original post. (Now I understand that both the religious and scientists have their own dogma, but I accessed several pages without a mention. Which is why I asked for your sources.) Your conjecture simply isn't enough to sway opinion without additional proof.
Your characterization of evolution falls closely to the classic straw-man argument, setting up the weakest of theories to be shot down. When you ignore arguemnts contrary to your own opinion, you cannot strengthen your argument. For a scientific argument to be worthwhile, you must consider the weapons of your enemies.
The problem with posting equations is that they're akin to statistics: they can be used to prove whatever the author wants to prove. Words like "suspected" and "circumstances" leave room for interpretation, and that debate would only lead back to the beginning of the argument.
When trying to convince readers that an intelligent being is responsible for life on Earth, you should avoid using the phrase "circular reasoning". Any attempt to empirically prove the existence of God/intelligent being relies on circular reasoning, unless you're able to prove otherwise. Otherwise, a person is merely choosing what type of circular reasoning they'd prefer to believe, with no real results obtained.
Your central thesis, that " [e]volutionists have made intensely desperate efforts to see that the theory, or what still remains of it, survives" makes what was a relatively balanced paper another faceless proclomation of "I'm right, you're wrong". In discrediting evolution, you have neglected the proposition of your own countertheory that explains what evolution cannot. (And, as I mentioned before, your "debunking" is dubious in several places.)
Your point about science being the domain of all is true--but your slippery slope is here for all to see. To say " that religion itself can indeed use science to prove its points as well" is to say that science becomes a didactic tool for selective use; science isn't a book where you can Sharpie over the lines that don't suit you. Science proposes open-ended theories that will either continue to be proven true or disproven as our knowledge of the world around us expands. Your wielding of religion as a limited weapon against secularism belies your biases and weakens your overall argument. If you believe science is valid, then you believe in the answers it provides regardless of your personal orientations. But to say that science should be used only to prove the points you want to prove is silly, limited and unconvincing.
I will now ask the question: why should anyone doubt/not believe in evolution while believing in intelligent design?
