Discussing the pros and cons of evolution and contrasting it with conflicting theories is highly disfavored in public education settings, and that is where they need no be happening, not in the “virtual ghetto” of “Answers in Genesis” discussion threads, especially now that we are getting important new insights, such formal information theory, a discipline not available 150 or even 50 years ago, which is revolutionizing our perception of DNA as a formal language.
As for evolution being the so-called dominant theory, the geocentric theory of astronomy also survived well past its usefulness in describing planetary motion, despite the superior explanatory power of heliocentrism, which did NOT first appear with Copernicus in the 16th Century, but with Aristarchus of Samos, around 300 BC. That’s a 1900 year run of junk science.
So your argument from wide acceptance is virtually meaningless. It reminds me of a time I was stumped in a sidewalk debate outside the Supreme Court in DC. We were awaiting the Kentucky Ten Commandments decision, and I was arguing with a young man about the merits liberalism versus conservatism. His argument to me then was essentially this: If conservatism is superior, why do all the finest institutions of higher education lean liberal? Obviously, smart people become liberals, therefore being liberal is the smart thing to be. Sensing the circularity there?
I’ve thought about that conversation often, because I had no ready response at the moment, and he went away grinning, feeling he had won. It later occurred to me that many bad things had been widely accepted, only to later fall on hard times once people had a chance to work it through. Slavery, woman’s suffrage, etc. Did you know it was once “widely accepted” that man could not travel faster than about 20-30 mph because he would just fall apart from the physical stress?
No, there is much to learn from the debate, but one trap we cannot fall to is intimidation of the intellectual elite. Evolution is a key political tool of the left in creating a universe for our children that has no need of a Creator and therefore implies no higher moral order which must supersede the dictates of the state in the conscience of the citizen. With evolution firmly in place, the state can play god and get away with it. Evolution, like global warming, was hatched in an ideologically powered birth chamber, and can skew the science of secular zealots as badly as any religious theory. If it is “dominant,” it is not because it has superior explanatory power; it is because the scientific priesthood will not permit our children to hear heretical views in public schools, blocking our progress of thought and our discovery of new truth, and that is troubling indeed.
The K-12 public education setting is where established science is taught, not new, controversial science (if you could in fact extricate the religious base from Intelligent Design). Get it to be the dominant theory, then you can expect it to get down to the K-12 schools. Until then, you are trying to do a dishonest end-run around the process.
Evolution is a key political tool of the left in creating a universe for our children that has no need of a Creator
This is where you betray that your real objection to evolution is not a scientific one. You want it out of schools because it offends your religious and social sensibilities, not because of any supposed lack of scientific merit. I remember statements such as these whenever someone tries to pass Intelligent Design off as science.
Evolution, like global warming, was hatched in an ideologically powered birth chamber
Evolution was "hatched" by highly religious Christians in an environment where those who supported it were branded as heretics, and later even put on trial. Yes, Darwin was a Christian when he started formulating his theory of natural selection; in fact, he rather annoyed others on the Beagle with his constant quoting of scripture. It survived religious, political, legal and scientific attacks for decades before it came to the forefront of science. Even the powerful Lord Kelvin was an opponent. That is a sign of a strong scientific theory.
Its history has no comparison with the history of global warming, which was latched onto and supported by politicians pretty much from the beginning. With so much support from the highest levels of international governments, there's pretty much no way it could fail, at least in the short term. But the short term is all the politicians need, maybe 40 or so years to remake the world as they want it using a time-tested political tool called threat of catastrophe. After that it won't matter if the public realizes global warming is a fraud, the damage will have been done.