OK Jason gave the correct answer, and he definitely knows a lot more science than me. I don’t need to answer.
Richard Dawkins has a chapter on bats and their “sonar” in his book The Blind Watchmaker. Here is an article from Science Daily that states while the fossil evidence may be weak, the molecular biology evidence fills in some gaps about bat evolution. Google is only a click away. Type “Bat Evolution” Also PandasThumb dealt with Bat Evolution. There is enough evidence, not really a problem for evolution.
abc << (1) Is there any reliable evidence showing God take no active role in the formation of human body? >>
As Jason explained, science (biology) is silent on God. Here is a quote I’ve given several times from evangelical geologist Keith Miller on creation:
“The doctrine of creation really says nothing about ‘How’ God creates. It does not provide a basis for a testable theory of the mechanism of change. If it does not address this issue, then it does not contribute anything to a specifically scientific description of the history of life. I believe that all of creation is designed by God and has its being in God, but that does not give me any insights into the processes by which God brought that creation into existence. That is the role of scientific investigation, a vocation in which I find great excitement and fulfillment…It is the continuing success of scientific research to resolve previous questions about the nature and history of the physical universe, and to raise new and more penetrating ones, that drives the work of individual scientists. For the theist this simply affirms that, in creating and preserving the universe, God has endowed it with contingent order and intelligibility, and given us as bearers of the divine image the capability to perceive that order.” (Keith Miller, Perspectives on an Evolving Creation [Eerdmans, 2003], pages 13,14)
I accept that. Science is silent on the action of God. There is however good scientific evidence for human evolution – the fossil hominids, and molecular genetics are two areas of evidence. Ratzinger / Benedict accepts human evolution as I’ve quoted many times before:
“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.” (In The Beginning…)
I don’t have a problem, and Ratzinger / Benedict does not have a problem with human evolution. This isn’t that hard to understand, and I know you will get it someday soon.
abc << (2) No fossil evolution record is associated with bats. what’s special about bats? One theist evolutionist told me “God created bats directly, but let human form through evolution” Now what’s the “scientific” explanation? >>
Although Jason answered this above, let’s say for the sake of argument there was absolutely no fossil record for bats. Now what does that mean? That bats were created from scratch? If so, then what do we do with the excellent fossil record for the reptile-to-mammal transition? And the list would go on. Logically, all evolutionists need is ONE intermediate fossil. In fact there are many.
OK, now what you need to come back with is: (1) there is absolutely no fossil evidence for human evolution or bat evolution because we know all the fossil finds and genetics evidence are frauds, or (2) show how science demonstrates that God intervened and created bats and humans from scratch. Easy to do, no problem right?