Fine. Bring it on. That's the way science works, according to the principle of "put up or shut up." Should you genuinely succeed in toppling evolution as a scientific theory, or replacing it with some creationistic theory (which momentous shift in scientific thought will obviously be objectively demonstrable in the content of the professional scientific literature) I pledge to be right there by your side insisting that the victorious creationistic theory be taught and the vanquished evolutionary theory be excluded. I promise to do that even if I should personally happen to remain an evolutionist.
I don't think you guys really understand that, with possibly a few exceptions, we evolutionists are not committed primarily to evolutionary theory, or to any particular theory, but rather to science more generally, and/or to the maintenance of the highest possible academic and scholarly standards in education.
I expect most, if not all, of the evolutionists here would agree that if evolutionary theory was genuinely replaced or abandoned in science (as opposed to some antievolutionary view being forced into curricula by means of popular and political pressure tactics) that would be a good and most wonderful thing, as it could only mean that a major advance or correction in our understanding of nature had occurred.
Don't misunderstand. I don't believe for a minute that evolution will be replaced, unless by some view that substantially subsumes it (as Einstein's relativity subsumed Newtonian dynamics). I am completely convinced, after examining a great deal of creationist literature to the best of my ability as a scientific layperson, that the whole movement is based on delusion and wishful thinking, at best; but I would be most happy and excited to be proven wrong!
What I assuredly am NOT happy about is creationists (and ID'ers) trying to make an end run around the process of peer review and testing which any genuine and successful scientific theory must endure. This is bad because it sets precedence for a bar-lowering, wishy-washy intellectual relativism that makes it that much easier for liberals to get their nonsense and corrosive, PC, feel good fluff into the curricula.
The way it works is that your idea FIRST prevails in the market place of scientific ideas (that is, it is adopted and productively used or implicated by working scientists in their ongoing research) and THEN, as a CONSEQUENCE of the FACT of its being a part of science, it is included in science curricula.
You guys just got the process backwards is all. Although the truth is, IMHO, that creationists will never put their ideas forward for real scientific review. This is not just because the ideas are not up to snuff, but also because the possibility of success in science requires that your theory be subjected to the risk of failure. Creationists will simply never be willing to run that risk. This is why creationists and ID'ers are angling for their ideas to be included in curricula on the basis of a kind of intellectual affirmative action, as a "balance" to evolution. Putting creationism into the curricula due to a policy of "fairness," "balance," or whatever, gives creationists what they desire: Guaranteed success and immunity from failure. Unfortunately (for them) that's not the way real science works.
I don't even think it's that.
More like fear and confusion. Take the Christian Creationists... They seem to feel that if there were apes in the family tree, that Jesus' mother couldn't have been a virgin. It's a miracle either way, so what's the big deal with a literal six day Creation?
I don't know why Darwin is lumped in with Freud and Marx. He is far more at home in a pantheon with Adam Smith and the Founding Fathers, the icons of open economies and open societies.
Smith proposed an "Invisible Hand" that rules the economy in a state of competition among self interested actors. In an open economy with a few simple rules, the greatest good arises out of discord, order from disorder. The Constitution is designed on the idea of separation of powers, where the natural base instincts of men for power are placed in direct competition for the service of the nation. Again, a simple set of rules leads to effective, stable, limited government.
Darwin's theory (and it's modern progeny) are so similar: a few simple rules (natural selection, speciation, mutation, reproductive isolation, etc.) and all life and living systems flow from them. The 'Invisible Hand' of evolution at work!
Centrally-planned economic systems have failed.
Dictatorial political systems have failed.
Intelligently designed biological systems are equally absurd.