Yes, I also find it hard to believe that an opening with such a logical and elegant scheme of development can be refuted, but practical and aesthetic considerations aside, how does the Dragon stand against harse analysis?  For example, I find the development of Qa5 lines (no ...h5 stuff) to very logical in appearance.  In fact, I think it would almost appear to be an injustice in chess if these lines were to be refuted, since this is black's attack in its most principled form.  But as far as I am aware, these lines are under great pressure these days, and it seems like it is close to being refuted!  (If this line doesn't work, I think the refutation may be one the most counterintuitive examples in chess.  Of course, this is the view of a Dragon player.)  And when you look at ...Rc8 lines, the plan with 12.Kb1 and 14.g4 (for example Tiviakov-Komeljenovic, Linares 1998 ) looks difficult to meet.  If this doesn't work, where black go?  Delay castling with ...Bd7?  Play 9.Bc4 Nd7?!  (I would be very surprised if this line works and the main lines didn't.  Now that would counterintuitive!)  It seems like the world's top experts don't have a good answer these days!  Forget about winning with the dragon, how does black survive?

Seriously, what do you think about the current state of theory in the Dragon?  If you think the Dragon is busted, what lines do you think are the busts?  If you think black is OK, then what are your arguments in favor of the Dragon?  Where do you think Black should seek solid ground?  Who will lead the way?