[Dimensio]

Ask any number of school graduates who got good grades in their biology class, what is the proof of evolution and they will cite fossil records.

Could you be more specific. Are you referring to high-school level biology or collegiate level? Also, have you conducted a personal survey to justify this claim, or is it merely speculation?

I would daresay that while the fossil record provides strong evidence for evolution, it is not "proof" because no scientific theory, including evolution, can be proven. Moreover, DNA has rapidly become another very strong line of evidence for common descent.

But ask similar group a similar question about physics or chemistry and they will cite space travel, atomic bomb, stuff that went boom under their noses, etc.

I do not quite understand your meaning here. If you were referring to college-level students who had studied evolution extensively, it is likely that their field of study is biology, and as such their expertise regarding nuclear physics or astrophysics would be limited.

If there is a real proof of evolution, let them teach it.

There is no "proof" of any scientific explanation. There is merely strong, compelling evidence that has led to the explanation acheiving the level of "theory".

When they teach that occurence of similar dead species in archaeological layers proves evolution they insult the intelligence of better students and further dumb down the bad ones.

Indeed, as this not only misrepresents the vast supporting evidence for evolution, but it also misrepresents the very means by which science operates.

[annalex]

No I did not conduct a formal survey, nor do I know of one. I ask you to compare a high school graduate who got a good grade in biology with a high school graduate who got a good grade in physics. Ask the first what proof of evolution he knows and he will point to dinosaur or monkey skeletons arranged in a suggestive way. Ask the second what proof of electromagnetism he knows and he will turn on the radio. The first is a hoax; the second is experiential proof. But both are taught as proofs, which is a disgrace.

[Hill of Tara]

"There is merely strong, compelling evidence that has led to the explanation acheiving the level of "theory"."


the "evidence" is neither strong, nor compelling,except to those who desperately want to believe it.