"I just don't see how, or why, the two have to be so antiseptic from one another. Good God. "
Evolution and ID? Or science and philosophy? The former I'm adamant about, since ID is not even close to being an alternative to evolution, even if we did redefine science to accept it. ID says one thing, "everything is too complicated to be a natural process." Evolution constitutes thousands of technical papers and decades of research that covers all fields of life sciences.
If you mean teaching science and philosophy together, well, that's opinion, since there are a lot of philisophical issues that revolve around science, like ethics. But I think there is enough real science to fill 8 classes a day for kids, so I'd be against mixing philosophy with science. Leave science class as an objective period to learn what our current understanding of the natural world is.
"Billions of years of history are not."
This is opinion only of people who have no advanced science education. To the scientific community, there is no difference, and evolution is just as strong as relativity. Almost all of astronomy is about the past, we can see the stars, but what we see is actually mill/bill years old. But we don't need 'faith' to tell us how they work. Hell, just by looking at the light from distant stars, we can tell what light elements are predominant in that system! Just by analyzing the light! Same with evolution, there is overwhelming evidence from fossils to genetics to geology. Just because we didn't see it happen, does not mean we can't be sure it happened. And there actually are things we can reproduce in a lab about evolution.
"Your suggestion for mandatory stickers in bibles is overblown. "
Maybe, but they are both equally ridiculous, and the bible one is pretty much true compared to the science one. Evolution is theory in science, but not in the common usage of the word. Noah's flood, Lazarus rising from the dead, water to wine... list goes on, all directly oppose natural laws.
If you don't want to believe evolution on a faith basis, that's cool. But you cannot argue against it scientifically. The only people on your side are a couple people with advanced science degrees who just got them so they could have weight attacking evolution, and don't even contribute to the actual scientific process. On the other hand you have every science institution on the planet in the life sciences. The people who devote their livew to the subject. You and I don't know near enough about molecular biology to debate it. Trust me, I can't even read technical papers from fields outside computer science, since I don't understand any of it, science dictionary or not. Science is WAY more complicated than the childish ID makes it look. So basically, we have to trust someone. For me there is only one option. I trust the scientific method, it has proven that it works over and over. IDers point out that science makes mistakes, but they never mention that it is other scisntists who discover and correct the mistakes thanks to the scientific methods of peer review and publication. Of course they are going to make mistakes, the point is whether they catch and correct them or not, and they do. Evolution has been around for over a century, if it weren't true, we'd haev figured it otu long ago, because all the predictions it makes would not work.
Evolution constitutes thousands of technical papers and decades of research that covers all fields of life sciences.
I would expect as much from those who turn a blind eye toward the biblical account of creation. It should take mountains of obfuscation to explain away the fact that God created the heavens and the earth and sustains them according to "natural" laws to this day while being fully capable of intervening as desired. The Theory of Evoluton has not been a friend of science. Fact is, what we perceive as "natural laws" are supernatural in and of themselves. But like frogs in a boilng pot, we're oblivious to the same. Jaded, some might say.