There was a time when people that believed the earth is flat could make the same statement. That should make you very intellectually uncomfortable.
I may be wrong, but are you trying to say that all current scientific explanation should be considered fact? About 500 years ago science felt pretty confident in the current scientific theories. Today we know many were flat out wrong. Odds are 500 years from now the same will be true for our current popular scientific theories. Unlike religion, science is every-changing.
It's not fair to compare the science of today with the science of 500 years ago. For one, we follow the scientific process when conducting research. A scientist forming a hypothesis, evaluating data and identifying problems will make more meaningful discoveries than someone making wild claims by boiling the guts of birds.
Also, the scientific community today is less hindered in its research by the church than scientists 500 years ago.
And who says religion never changes? Churches have split, people have made different interpretations of sacred texts and religion has played different parts throughout the centuries. Surely today's Christians don't practice the same religion as the early Christians.
I am not uncomfortable in the least. If someone someday comes up with a superior scientific explanation that so be it. You said it was "merely my opinion" that evolution is the only scientific theory to teach children. As of right now, this is all that should be taught in high school freshman biology.
The scientific method (as we know it today) did not exist 500 years ago. The "theory" you refer to were either philosophical musings (ex Aristotle's celestial circles) or nonsense like alchemy and astrology which had not stood up to the rigors of hypothesis driven "science" - repeated cycles of experimentation and observation. While the technology has vastly improved the scientific method has basically remained the same since Bacon.
Unlike religion, science is every-changing.
Gosh you don't really want to go there do you? ;-)
You know, this popular creationist line of argument has some strange implications. Let's see if you really want to go there...
You're implying that essentially no scientific theory we hold to be true today is really true. The scientific theories we rely on today are actually wrong. Or maybe they're all correct today, but they won't be 500 years from now.
You're basically saying that either there is no truth, or truths change with the times. Either way, your conception of science is that all important scientific theories & frameworks periodically collapse, and are substantially overthrown, as in a revolution, by something significantly different or even opposite. Then, presumably the new series of scientific theories will themselves be completelly overthrown in the next paroxysm of Hegelian dialectical revolution. And on and on and on.
Science must proceed in the manner you're implying, jerking from one incompatible theory to another with no rhyme or reason; indeed with no expectation of ever converging on any actual truth. It must be so - unless the world is fundamentally comprehensible. If we can, in principle, truly understand the natural world, then new major theories that overturn the old ones should actually be closer to the real truth. And I say that is exactly how science has proceeded.
But you must deny this. All so you can hold on to a belief in creationism. Is that an acceptable tradeoff for you?
LVD: There was a time when people that believed the earth is flat could make the same statement. [emphasis added]
Really? What science did these believers base their claim on? Pythagoras and Archimedes knew the Earth is sphereical; Erastosthenese measured its diameter.