Well, I dare say, that "Evos" (as you so eloquently denigrate them) have far more proof regarding their position than do "Crea-os" (sp?).
Perhaps it would be wise to allow both positions to have their say - exclude neither.
Of course, that begs the question, what do we teach our young? Perhaps both, in an unbiased manner, and let them decide as they grow?
In their opinion they do. Creationists, OTOH, tend to consider that since the Bible is true and God is trustworthy, they have plenty of good reason for believing as they do in spite of what we are told the evidence is.
I don't know anyone who denies variation within species or that natural selection plays a role in that. Even the AiG and ICR don't deny that. Where the main area of disagreement is is in how MUCH change is possible.
Creationists say that it's limited. Evolutionists extrapolate and say that if it can go so far, it can go further.
The fossil record is what it is. It demonstrates that many forms of life existed that no longer exist. It can provide some evidence of what conditions were like at the time the creature died. Anything beyond that as far as evolution, is merely speculation and interpretation of the fossil record. Since no one was there to actually observe it, something that is considered a criteria for doing *ahem* "real" science, it really cannot technically fall into that category.
Of course, that begs the question, what do we teach our young? Perhaps both, in an unbiased manner, and let them decide as they grow?
That's what freedom is all about, isn't it?
That'd be my option. That's what I did with my kids.
You realize, though, that for all the years of having evolution taught in public schools, that the majority of people still believe in creation of some kind and prefer having it addressed in schools, alongside creation. And that for all the years of evolution being taught, it has not changed people's minds. They will still decide for themselves what they want to believe.
Mandating otherwise through government decree is far more dangerous with its resultant loss of freedom, than the risk of being wrong about an issue that, in reality, has very little impact on the day to day living of most people.