Hey, I'm with you 100%. Unfortunately, the way we might wish for things to be someday is not how things are now, and hence we have the problem of teaching today's children now, not forty years down the road when the conservative revolution is complete. Therefore, I suggest we teach science in science class, as it is defined by scientists, and not by lawyers, political activists, or pastors.
You also err when it can be inferred that you believe that macroevolution is physical, observable reality.
Oh, no. But let us continue.
Many persons have observed caterpillars metamorphizing into butterflies. No one has observed a land mammal evolving into a whale.
No one - no non-participant, anyway - observed OJ murdering his ex-wife. No one observed Pacific tribes carving the Easter Island statues. No one observed the collision of the North American and Pacific plates to cause the rise of the Rocky Mountains. No one observed glaciers covering what is now modern-day Chicago. And yet we know all of those things happened, because we piece together the available evidence and find the best explanation that fits that evidence. So it is with evolution. Again, I point out that if you limit yourself to believing things that are directly observable, you're not going to believe very much - you can't see your house when you're not home, so what right do you have in believeing that it is there when you're not? None whatsoever, by the standard of evidence you're setting up, and yet I doubt you seriously consider the proposition that it winks out of existence when you're not around to keep an eye on it.
...there are also some problems with the theory, as the intelligent design advocates have pointed out.
No. Of the few proposed, none of them - not one - has yet withstood serious scrutiny by scientists.
Scientific consensus changes over the years. Newtonian physics was the standard until the late 19th Century; since that time, certain propositions of that school have been refuted and are no longer accepted.
Really? Which ones?
You must drop this apparent notion that scietific theories are either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Theories are approximations, and some approximations are better than others. Newton's physics was, in fact, an excellent approximation - so good, in fact, that the same equations he derived, with slight relativistic corrections, are still used 400 years later to fly space probes around the solar system.
Was it a perfect approximation? It turns out that it was not - Einstein discovered certain unusual conditions that were governed by a different set of laws, but this does not mean F=ma suddenly stopped working sometime in the 1920's. And so the synthesis of Newtonian physics with the additional elements that Einstein discovered makes up a large portion of what we now consider physics. At no point was Newton "wrong" - he was merely incomplete. As is the theory of evolution, of course. Is our understanding complete? No. But the bulk of the theory, the guts of it, has withstood 150 years of serious scrutiny, much as Newton's physics has - and like Newton, "incomplete" does not mean "wrong".
The fact that I accept the propositions of the Bible, in their historical and grammatical context and in light of authorial intent, as the ultimate truth has no bearing on my concept of God or the physical universe.
Apparently it does - evolution is real, whether your worldview allows you to see it or not. Sorry.
I concur. A scientist is, by definition, one who is learned in science, especially natural science. Merriam Webster's OnLine Directory gives this definition of science: "a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena." What are "general laws" or "general truths"? Macroevolution is neither. It is a theory supported by much evidence, not supported by other evidence. Being a scientist is not the same as being, say, a Catholic priest. Denying the existence of the Trinity will result in a priest being forbidden from holding any teaching or liturgical duty at the least by authority of the local bishop. Who has the authority to "defrock" a scientist who disagrees with random, unguided evolution, be he a intelligent design advocate or a creationist? Who died and appointed the evolutionists as the arbiters?
Those trained in science should teach science. However, belief in macroevolution is no determinant as to whether a teacher is a scientist or not.
The theory of evolution is not as provable as the example you cite regarding the South Pacific islanders carving the Easter Island statues. As far as that goes, there are those who believe that non-Polynesians were involved in the creation of the statues. Nor is it as provable as the theory of plate tectonics and the possible collision of continents. With regard to that issue, Immanuel Velikovsky, an atheist, believed in catastrophism, not gradual development, as responsible for continental shifts. While the theories that Polynesians carved the statues and that the collision of the continental plates caused the Rockies to form may be more supportable than the alternatives offered, the alternate theories have some valid points as well. Macroevolution may be a hypothesis supported by much evidence, but there are valid points made by the intelligent design and creationist scientists.
Belief in supernatural revelation, specifically the propositions of the Bible, is not a denial of the physical realities of the universe. It is a presupposition, as much as is the naturalism of mainstream science. Both naturalism and conservative Christian beliefs are filters by which one can interpret observable facts.