You can easily see it all around you. You differ from your parents, do you not? That is "microevolution."
Macro evolution is a farce, I’ll never accept it.
Your acceptance is not required. Science will get along just fine in spite of your sullen disbelief.
But there is fine evidence for "macroevolution" out there. There are several known examples of what are called ring species.
Ring species provide unusual and valuable situations in which we can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them. In a ring species:
- A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat.
- At one location in the ring of populations, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding, and hence are different species.
- Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one of these species change gradually, through intermediate populations, into the traits of the second species.
A ring species, therefore, is a ring of populations in which there is only one place where two distinct species meet. Ernst Mayr called ring species "the perfect demonstration of speciation" because they show a range of intermediate forms between two species. They allow us to use variation in space to infer how changes occurred over time. This approach is especially powerful when we can reconstruct the biogeographical history of a ring species, as has been done in two cases. Source
ID is not science. Plain and simple, not science.
On this we can agree.
ID or other alternatives to evolution should not be taught in science class unless they can be verified in the same scientific way that evolution was shown to be true. I also don't see the teaching of evolution as something that automatically excludes God (or any other supernatural creator) since nowhere in the theory of evolution is the creation of life itself explained.
Teaching a subject without given all the possible views is not teaching! It is indoctrination, dare I say “preaching”!
Can I assume that everyone here took Geometry in high school (or at some point in time of their life)? Remember you were taught the difference between postulates and theorems. What if we were taught that postulates were all you needed to do Geometry? You would fail when you needed to use the subject later in life. Instead you were shown how one builds on the other!
In science class we are taught that the postulate on the beginning of life is all we need when nothing could be more FALSE! Think about this: without Judaism/Christian religions, we would have never developed the sciences that we have today! Remember, until this type religion came along, things like life, wind, rain, storms, etc... were all attributed to Gods and therefore could not be second guessed. Once people were lead away from this belief, they were free to begin to form ideas and ultimately prove what we have today. So, just like in Geometry, one builds off the other!
Squashing possible ideas is NOT progressive; it is censorship. Even worse, this is censorship disguised as “separation of church and state!” Let us not forget that history teaches us that “religious” and “intelligent” people KNEW the world was flat, while the “ignorant” and “blasphemous” people BELIEVED it was round. Have we come full circle on this subject?