[Antonello]

I don't see where it is the responsibility of evolutionists to appease religion by 'proving' compatibility on anything other than an individual level for their own personal beliefs.

Whether you or anyone else feels the two are compatible or not doesn't affect the evidence evolution is based upon. It merely affects how each person chooses to treat that evidence.

[Mad Dawg]

To a great extent I agree. In public schools, however, I would add that teachers of so-called Darwinism ought to avoid suggesting that it disproves theism. And the unfortunate tendency to use the term "evolution" to describe or characterize any sequence of events which meets with the speaker's approval ought to be identified and eschewed.

I once heard an idiot (now that I think of it, more than once, and one of the idiots got a Doctorate!) suggest that Einstein's Theory of Relativity disproved the notion of ethical absolutes!

I do wonder how important it is that the average high school graduate believe or disbelieve Darwinism. I would like to think that it would be not only safe but good to lay out (necessarily in broad strokes) the evidence and arguments and difficulties with two or three notions of evolution. I think it more important that high school graduates have a clue about what the scientific process is than that they believe the current conclusions of that process.

I'd like to suggest the proposition that "Random" is sometimes a scientific term and sometimes a philosophical or theological term. Except in limited circumstances, the term "improvement" is scarcely scientific.

"But that would be putting the clock back," gasped the Governor. "Have you no idea of progress, of development?"

"I have seen them both in an egg," said Caspian. "We call it Going bad in Narnia. ..."