4. When scientists who are Christians with degrees from prestigious universities rule out evolution, are they credible?
Their arguments are no more credible than when the great astronomer Fred Hoyle, from the highly prestigious Cambridge University England, argued against the Big Bang, or when the deservedly world-famous scientist Richard Dawkins, from the equally prestigious Oxford University, rules out the existence of God. Whenever a scientist uses non-scientific arguments or makes unsupported statements, his analysis ceases to be scientifically credible... even more so when s/he’s arguing in a field that’s not his/her field of expertise.
When judging an argument, we should always who's making it, how qualified are they in the relevant field (not just in "science" in general), and how well supported their argument is with scientific fact. A scientist who says "Of course, when we track down the first human male it won't be Adam" is speaking just as unscientifically as the one who says "Of course, we'll never find evidence confirming evolution of species."