YngNLuvnIt - get your facts straight. Evolution (and macroevolution) is based on tested and provable evidence, so yes, it totally, totally proved. It is only considered theory as a scientific term. By the exact same standards, gravity is only a 'theory'. Do you challenge the theory of gravity, and suggest it shouldn't be taught in science classes? Don't be ridiculous.

As I have already said, antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a good example of evolution happening right now. The evidence is all around you, whether you choose to believe in it or not.

There is no credible challenge to evolution, despite 100 years of debate among the greatest scientific minds. Do you really think you can suddenly jump in and point out some imaginary 'flaw'?

Why do religious people choose to remain ignorant on evolution? Trust me, your God does not want you to be stupid. She/He wants you to know the truth. Pick up a science book before you try to make outrageous claims.

Boaz, at the (severe) risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I should like to make a small point about the examples you choose to illustrate your arguments.

>>'it all depends on us' (if God is 'not') ... seems fine to we who have been enculturated with positive values already, but take these away, (as in the Soviet Union where atheism was taught at every level) u end up with few people who have moral fibre and backbone which a bribe won't bend.

So according to you, if the Soviet Union had maintained its Russian Christian heritage instead of teaching atheism, all would have been wonderful?

I assume that you are aware that Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, Reinhard Heydrich, and Rudolf Hoess were all Catholics from devout Catholic families? Hermann Goering had mixed Catholic-Protestant parentage, while Rudolf Hess, Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, and Adolf Eichmann were Protestant. Not one of the top Nazi leaders was raised in a liberal or atheistic family.

In his book on the current Pope, John L. Allen Jr. writes about the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Nazi Party. "Cardinal Faulhaber, for example, gave a speech in May 1933 in which he expressed thanks for the Volksgemeinschaft, or spirit of community, which Hitler had fostered, and rejected 'liberal individualism.'"

Liberal individualism, eh? Sounds pretty much like that which you object to so strongly, doesn't it.

Boaz, can you please stop using Christianity as the magic pudding that unites humanity in harmony? It patently does not, and never has.

And of course so that we are politically correct all forms of creationism must be included in this intelligent Design such as Hindu etc..... So religions would have to start arguing which creator is in fact the designer....

Another thing to kill people over.

Great.

I'll stick to aliens, beam me up, please.

The neodarwinian theory of evolution demonstrates WHAT designed life. If creationists want ID to be taught in science classes to explain WHO designed life, then they should first have there theory published in a reputable science journal. Until such time it should be taught only in religion or philosophy classes.

Spendocrat:

Do not presume to judge me ignorant because I do not accept your beliefs to be "totally, totally proved", or even anywhere near equal to the theory of gravity.

"Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied, none have involved the production of new functionally complex information, such as a new enzyme. This would be real evolution, but such has not been found. Sometimes bacteria have acquired resistance genes from other species via viruses or by direct transfer through tiny tubes, but this is not the addition of new information to the biosphere as a whole. Bacteria only produce bacteria 'after their kind', not a different type of creature.

Viruses are sometimes said to 'evolve', but what really happens is that mutations cause the changes to their protein coats. There is no increase in complexity, but sometimes the changes mean that antibodies do not recognise them. So the viruses are 'fitter', but there is still no increase in information.

A similar case is a recent discovery that some antibiotic-resistant bacteria have abnormally high mutation rates. This is caused by a mutation in the genes for the sophisticated genetic proof-reading mechanisms present in all life. This means there is more chance of errors not being corrected. Sometimes one of these defects happens to result in antibiotic resistance, as explained above."
-Part of "Has evolution really been observed?" AiG

That viruses might be "fitter" in isolated cases doesn't mean much to me about the universe evolving from some sort of cosmic soup.

Observable facets of science within the evolutionary theory might be discussed from primary/secondary school level on, but as to the Big Bang, macroevolution, etc. (and other things which I STILL MAINTAIN are not proven fact), these should be argued at tertiary level along with other religious and/or philosophical outlooks such as ID, 6 day Genesis, whatever else.

rockhound, so any position becomes religious simply because it contradicts somebody's claim about the supernatural? I should hope that's not your claim, and hence I think you'll need to explain why evolution is a religious question but the mechanics of breading rising isn't. (Assuming someone holds a belief that God personally and directly makes it rise.)

"Scientists do not restrict themselves to documenting observations in the present, but speculate about what happened in the unobservable past."
"The unobservable past", is either a tautology or means a point in time where the is no evidence from which to draw a conclusion. That point in time would then be about 13.7 billion years ago, which covers most everything, and assuming the tautology then I see no reason why science should limit itself to making predictions about the future. Even without direct evidence relating to an issue, why should scientists ignore the implications of other theories that are supported; but this is getting less and less related to evolution, which has no such problem.

"The idea of evolution (protozoa turned onto people over billions of years) says that no god was involved."
No that's the theory of evolution, ie. the description of how evolution did occur on Earth, not the concept/fact. (Either way it isn't particularly concerned with people.) Does it say no god was involved? In a way, but that is because of what the evidence shows. It doesn't say no god created *the universe*, that no god created life, or didn't make slight alterations in the environment to bring about a certain result.

"So evolution is a religion (a worldview)."
While technically it may be a worldview, a worldview is not a religion. There is no belief in a supernatural/spiritual power, or using the broader meaning, no devotion.

"Why should people holding one particular worldview have exclusive access to the science classroom to promote their religion "
Because that worldview is *scientific* and it is a science class? Because there's objective evidence for it? Not sure whether I'm fascinated, appalled or merely saddened by the level of creationist sophistry.