Hey, I'm no evolutionary biologist (my training is in physics). I just happen to find the subject fascinating & I read as much as I can about it. I often get handed a healthy dose of humility when it comes my knowledge of the subject. However, the more I learn, the more I am constantly surprised by how much is really known about it.
I think one of the points I've tried to make, though, is that it's really difficult to argue any technical point from a layperson's understanding of it. Someone truly well-versed in evolutionary biology would probably shake their head at half of what either of us have said on the subject. Does this mean we should blindly accept what evolutionary biologists tell us? Of course not. I do, however, think it means their consensus should be taken seriously, and that people in general should try to make a deep effort to understand the subject before attempting to argue with it; too often I see people trying to argue with an established professional consensus when they themselves don't even have their basic facts straight.
You may find evidence that conflicts with theories that are based on Darwin's theory, or find that people came to the wrong conclusions about specifics, but Darwin's Theory itself is pretty much impossible to disprove.
Keep in mind that Darwin's basic theory, at least what he wrote in the 19th century, has been deemed "inadequate" - though this does not mean it is completely incorrect. By "inadequate", I mean he had no concept of genetics, his understanding of the role of statistical drift was limited and he didn't consider concepts like lateral gene transfer. Darwin's Theory is pretty much impossible to disprove, but I would argue that this is a testament to its ability to empirically describe the world we live in, not to its non-falsifiability. Consider this - could you even potentially imagine a fictional world that ID couldn't describe? It's easy to imagine a fictional world that evolution can't describe.
However, that takes us back to having a lot of faith in random chance.
Random chance, not really; evolution does operate within a specific system of constraints. If you mean a lot of faith in naturalistic consequence, yes, I would agree. But I also would argue that natural phenomena are the only kind that science can ever hope to describe. (They do call biology, physics, etc. the natural sciences for a reason.)
Our study of DNA has a good chance of shedding some light on some of these issues. If science disproves some beliefs held by religious people it would be far from the first time. Science also has a habit of disproving scientific theories as well.
Agreed, more research is needed. As far as your last sentence goes, I would say, sort of; science seems to have more of a habit of constraining and modifying existing theories, though, at least during this century.
How much of this should we teach in school? Should we avoid certain topics because they aren't scientifically provable. Should we teach students the truth that we all have a lot to learn, and that the biggest purpose of school is to give students the tools they need to learn things for themselves?
That's the real question. We can only teach what we know. We do know that the empirical pattern of evolution has been well-established; well enough that it can be assumed to be true for the purposes of constructing other "models". A (perhaps farfetched) comparison I would make is that we have measured Newton's Law of Gravitation very well in a good number of ways; well enough to know that it works. When we discover a new star system, we don't try to prove that Newton's Law works all over again - in fact we assume the law holds as a tool of inquiry to discover more about the star system. Evolution is applied in the same way; so far it has done a good job at painting a consistent picture of what we observe.
What do we teach in school? I say, simply the truth: here's the theory, here's the evidence that supports it, here's what it can tell us, and here's what we don't know yet - the same as should be done with all theories. To say that there is a scientific revolution occurring that points to intelligent design as an empirical conclusion, however, is simply not true - it just isn't happening. Should students be free to draw that conclusion on their own, though? Of course they should. What you can't do, though, is ask biology teachers to talk about deep spiritual and philosophical concepts in class - they simply aren't qualified on that front; all they can describe is the biology.
"Consider this - could you even potentially imagine a fictional world that ID couldn't describe? It's easy to imagine a fictional world that evolution can't describe."
You can describe an infinite number of diverse fictional worlds that could all comply with evolution.
It is possible to describe a world in which creatures clearly did not evolve if you were to know enough about that world. You can never know enough to be sure that a fictional world was not designed.
Actually it's pretty much impossible to immagine a world that was not created, because the world had to start somewhere. All our natural laws tell us you don't get something from nothing.
What's your scientific theory on the origin of the universe?
What would you suggest we teach in schools about the origin of the universe.
Let me just say that the big bang theory doesn't really seem to cover the origin of the universe, merely what happened after it's existence began.
"What you can't do, though, is ask biology teachers to talk about deep spiritual and philosophical concepts in class - they simply aren't qualified on that front; all they can describe is the biology."
I agree and disagree. :)
It's actually pretty hard to teach history without talking about deep spiritual and philosophical concepts, becuase such beliefs have shaped history.
We should not indoctrinate students in history classes or in science classes. I think that ID should be mentioned as a theory that is believed by some, but cannot be proven or disproven. The theory of evolution should also be taught and a reasonable sampling of the evidence that supports it should be presented.
Most important we should teach students how to study the evidence and see where it leads them, rather than trying to prove theories.
Theories are good at showing us where to look for evidence, but the evidence itself is what we learn from, not the theories. Theories are discardable as things we learn change the way we look at the world.