The fact that evolution is uncertain does not render it useless or unscientific. All scientific theories are uncertain. Does that mean we should stop teaching science? Evolution has a similar status, as far as degree of certainty goes, as does quantum theory, relativity theory, and many other scientific theories. We cannot observe atoms or space-time curvature either. These are the best theories we have for the observations. Similarly evolution is the best scientific theory for the observations. Furthermore, and I'm not necessarily pointing to you in particular, many creationists focus more on disproving evolution than they do supporting their own ideas. Even if evolution were to be completely debunked, it would not necessarily render creationism true. (or ID or any other idea, for that matter). Any alternative to evolution should rise or fall on its own merits.
Of course evolution is not useless. It is extremely useful to some. My complements on your honesty regarding its uncertainty.
Does that mean we should stop teaching science?
Has anyone on these threads ever indicated that to be their desire? No one here is opposed to science. That is entirely a construct of the opposition.
Evolution has a similar status, as far as degree of certainty goes, as does quantum theory, relativity theory, and many other scientific theories.
Perhaps, if you think theories about unobserved phenomena should be equal to theories about observed phenomena.
Even if evolution were to be completely debunked, it would not necessarily render creationism true.
The creation does not become true by default as evolution fails. However, in any debate it is SOP to support your argument while dismantling your opponent's. The difficulty in this debate is not exposing the weaknesses of evolution, but (like Gore) getting the opposition to admit when they've lost.