Think about it, folks. There's a reason the evolutionists hyperventilate at the mere thought that ID or creationism might even be mentioned in a public school, much less included as a part of the curricula. It's because evolutionists are afraid to have to actually put their belief system up on trial and have it questioned. Evolution receives much the same hallowed status in American public schools as "scientific socialism" did in Soviet schools - it's a truism, and and any debate must be stifled.
One would think that if evolution were really supported by independent facts and reason, that evolutionists would just be chomping at the bit to pit it against creationism in the schools - what a great way to show the kids how stupid those creationists are, and how superior and correct evolution is. The fact that evolutionists are afraid to do that, and want discussion on the subject limited to a very narrowly defined set of talking points speaks volumes.
Throughout this post you are complaining about science and evolution, and that there is no evidence to support evolution. (That is plainly false.)
On the other hand, you want ID taught as a scientific theory even though it lacks any scientific evidence. Talk about a double standard.
You want critical thinking? Riddle me this. How many designers are/were there? When did the design occur? And please specify the evidence that you use to support your positions.
No, it's plainly true. No evidence independently confirms evolution. No evidence actually shows that evolution is the only explanation. Evolution, in a sense, is merely the same "God in the gaps" that you're trying to accuse me of below. Evolution is a philosophy which INTERPRETS data, and which is misleadingly claimed to ITSELF be the data.
On the other hand, you want ID taught as a scientific theory even though it lacks any scientific evidence. Talk about a double standard.
Well, if your reading and retention skills were better, you'd remember that throughout all the past threads in which I've weighed in on the evolution-creation debate, I've never once said that ID/creationism were "scientific" theories. In fact, what I've said is that NEITHER these NOR evolution are scientific, specifically for the reason that none can be approached through the scientific method. BOTH sides rely upon interpretation of data and empirical evidences based upon philosophical predispositions, but for both, the appeals to the data are essentially circumstantial.
If we wish to abstain from teaching "unscientific" doctrines in the government schools, then let's just drop the matter of origins entirely, since neither can be reproduced experimentally, and both are precious difficult to use, in and of themselves, to make predictions that are experimentally testable. If we don't want unscientific dogma in the schools, then let's just stick to the 95% of science out there for which the question of origins is entirely irrelevant anywise.
You want critical thinking? Riddle me this. How many designers are/were there? When did the design occur? And please specify the evidence that you use to support your positions.
There was one Designer, it occurred about 10,000 years ago, and it's so because the Bible says so. Which is just as "scientific" as using circular reasoning, verifiably faulty radiometric dating methods, mathematical speculations which are not even testable in a lab, and reliance upon theories to explain the origin of life which are not only unlikely, but actually are IMPOSSIBLE using laws of science which are actually experimentally derived and which have withstood the test of time, to support evolution.