Nope and I'm not going to bother - lots of people lots more competent than me have already done that. I've read the books on both sides, listened to the evolution-creation debates and attended the lectures, followed the threads here as they come up. To 'support the assertion' means what? Produce my own book on the subject and be prepared to spend the next day/week/year defending it? Don't have the time. Supply one unbeatable 'proof'? People are always looking at 2 plus 2 and making all kinds of concessions to logic to come up with 5 - the willingly ignorant. Sorry but I've weighed lots of evidence produced by both sides and evolution was found to be wanting - and the evolutionists squirming at all kinds of questions that give the creationists no problem. And every day more evidence arises - did you see the thread here the other day about halos? It would appear that members on both sides have already made their minds up and nothing much will change them anyway - and if you want to say 'sounds like you fall into that category too' I will say yup, tis true. I do know of a number of evolutionists like Gary Parker that became creationists - none that went in the other direction. You can let me know if you know any. I will only say that it seems that every day I notice something that tells me the earth is much younger than the evolutionists try to tell me - and degrading very rapidly at a rate that doesn't compute with any billions of years theory.
'Ban both evolutionary and creation teaching from the public classroom.' Great idea. Ban the teaching of evolution, because it makes people uncomfortable!
Nope, ban the teaching of evolution because it's nonsense and can't be supported. Can you name one thing you know for sure about what you believe about evolution? Here let me offer a slightly different challenge to you. I believe in the creation account because the Bible has consistently proved itself to be absolutely error-free in all areas which lend themselves to being proven or disproven. Since it has proved to be absolutely true (in those areas which lend themselves), why shouldn't I believe it for those areas which don't lend themselves? Here's your challenge - find me one irrefutable error in the Bible period. You see, if you can prove that, you really have something because a single error means that nothing else can be trusted either including the creation account (because the Bible claims to be inspired by God and therefore is infallible). Should be easy, right? Good luck in your travels.
I'm sorry, but I do hope that you're not serious, because that is truly one of the more disgusting sentiments that I've heard in these discussions.
Of course I'm serious and just so that I'm clear about where you are coming from, could you be more specific about why you think it's such a disgusting sentiment? Let me ask you - the next time you go to your eye doctor, are you going to insist on knowing if he/she is an evolutionist or a creationist? Gee, based on your response, I would assume that you think it's something very important to figuring out whether your optometrist is competent. Clearly there are some branches of science where dealing with origins is necessary - but that doesn't take away from my assertion that for about 99% of science, it's totally irrelevant.