I am bothered though that you seem to equate this writing prof with a biology prof.
***I also had a Woman's Studies Prof saying similar things, proceeding from an evo standpoint. But at least I had respect for her because I had challenged her on a couple of things and she listened, without zapping my grade. She was one of the rarest feminists I've met, a true bull feminist who acted and thought like a man, a fascinating individual. Ok, so let's move on to my (First Year, First Semester Required Course) biology prof. He said, point blank, that the findings on the Galapagos Islands proved Darwin's theory. I think there are higher scientific requirements for proof than that.
As a rule Science departments are far less idiosyncratic and one simply doesn't get away with teaching inappropiate material. This does not include fuzzy studies semi-sciences where anything goes.
***One reason why I liked engineering. We had almost none of that nonsense. It has its own level of nonsense, but I didn't run into this garbage. Engineers build things. You can hold whatever philosophy you want as long as your circuit works.
Your college profs may have had power, but their authority has to be earned and demonstrated.
***And their authority was abused. I am in favor of empowering individuals to say, "shut up and teach."
I am sorry that you do not seem (emphasis "seem") to have enough biology background.
***Is that your way of saying you're sorry for the day you ever met me? ;-) This is the situation, such as it is. Now that this is becoming a public policy debate, I have as much footing as the next guy.
At a certain point, say after at least one class beyond basic college biology for science majors, it becomes clear that the foundations of the theory of evolution are quite solid.
***One could say along the same vein that, if someone were an antievolutionist, they would start to stand out in such a program and their grades would start to reflect it, regardless of the person's capability as a scientist. That's a true shame, and I think science should stick to science and GWB probably sees it similarly.
I only have time to hit a couple of points here.
First and most important I mean nothing derogatory when I say you seem not to have enough background. There's no reason at all why you should. The only circuits I do are small electric appliances with easily accessible screws.
It's just that it's easier to have a shorthand conversation with someone who can pick up on the bits without needing backgrounding. The subject is actually not as easy as it is made out to be.
My other point is that in a science class the student is there to learn what the scientists think.
Disagreement is fine, but in exams or in labs there is always...always the unspoken "What we currently believe" as part of the question.
But all the best research comes from questioning the current. Secondary research comes from expanding it a bit.
No more responses until much later or tomorrow.