A body on the floor with a knife wound, and blood droplets leading away not of the same DNA as that of the body leads police to believe that the attacker made the common mistake of cutting himself while stabbing another, and then walked away in that direction. That is not curcumstantial, it is forensic evidence that tells what happened. The same happens with the ToE. They see various fossils in various strata that have various things in common, and they can trace a line. Just like forensics, the ToE has essentially said "We see A and B, but for our theory to be right, we should see C." And that has happened with the ToE.
Why do evolutionists have to ... go on to insist their version of history is worthy of an exclusive hearing in public schools?
They don't. We teach science in the science class. The ToE happens to be the best science we have on the subject. Thus it gets taught in science class. Try coming up with a better scientific theory that's better than the ToE, and maybe even disproves the ToE, then it will end up in the science classes.
Yet there are ample examples of directly observed intelligent design
Please cite one that applies.
We do have a lot of data suggesting that evolution took place. But we do not have a real theory of evolution/ToE yet. Neither of the two XIX centuries theories (Darwin or Lamarck) cut the mustard. Nor the Jurassic Park movie is enough.
We need a new synthesis with the date, name of the author and defined claims. Science is not that different in this aspect from patent law.
Therein is the rub. The example you supplied not only has a connection with recent history but also entails blood samples of human DNA, thus making the conclusion fairly evident, but not to the extent of "proof."
Simply having "various things in common" is not enough if the theory of evolution is going to hold water. The historical connection ought to be demonstrated. Common forms do not necessarily denote common origins or history. In the case of evolution the trail must be one of consistent change from one species to another. The only thing direct observation has yielded is change to a limited degree.
All this circumstantial evidence is so freely admitted as strict science on the part of evolutionists, but all of a sudden, when proponents of intelligent design infer intelligent design from organized matter (circumstantial evidence), the subject is lumped into the realm of "supernatural," "religious," "mystical," and so forth, even though examples of intelligent design are everywhere, your own posts notwithstanding. What gives?
WHAT subject?