[JamesP81]

The only thing that leaves my blood boiling about this is the way teachers glibly assume that evolution is a proven fact. It isn't. In fact, the evidence supporting the theory is looking thinner and thinner all the time as new discoveries are made. When a teacher says, "This is where we came from, because science believes it" all they're doing is preaching a different religion.

I don't believe in evolution. In fact, I think it's total crap. But a lot of scientists do believe it, so I think it's useful for students to understand what it is and what the tenets of it are. But since it's just one theory, I have no problem with them teaching ID as a theory either.

[Dimensio]

I have no problem with them teaching ID as a theory either.

What does ID predict? How can these predictions be tested? What hypothetical observations would falsify the "theory" of ID?

[The_Repugnant_Conservative]

But since it's just one theory, I have no problem with them teaching ID as a theory either.

Only exception is ID is not a theory. It is only a hypothesis. It has a long way to go to become a theory.

[shuckmaster]

In fact, the evidence supporting the theory is looking thinner and thinner all the time as new discoveries are made.

Can you give an example or two of these new discoveries?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

In fact, the evidence supporting the theory is looking thinner and thinner all the time as new discoveries are made.

Actually it keeps getting better and better. Embryonic developmental data was found to agree substantially with the pre-existing morphological data. These are things like how the embryonic cells divide along the polarized axes and the cleavage patterns within phyla.

Now the molcular data are starting to confirm both the embryonic and morphological data. It's hard to find a valid scientific criticism of evolution any more.

But if you can turn up that billion year old mammal fossil you'll have something.

[Ichneumon]

In fact, the evidence supporting the theory is looking thinner and thinner all the time as new discoveries are made.

Um, no. Quite the contrary, in fact.

But just out of curiosity, please tell us whether you formulated the above impression from:

A) Delving deeply into the primary scientific literature yourself, or

B) Reading press releases from creationists.

[Stultis]

The only thing that leaves my blood boiling about this is the way teachers glibly assume that evolution is a proven fact.

Yeah, but that boiling blood comes, I'd warrant, from a position of special pleading rather than of consistent principle.

I reasonably certain that, not only doesn't it make your blood boil, but that it doesn't bother you in even the slightest degree when teachers "glibly assume" that Kreb's Cycle, or photosynthesis, or the germ theory of disease (etc, etc ad infinitum) is "a proven fact". There are thousands and thousands of theories that are either directly or indirectly invoked in statements by teachers and textbooks. If anything evolution is the least dogmatically covered and most often qualified of all these theories.

In fact, the evidence supporting the theory is looking thinner and thinner all the time as new discoveries are made.

That statement is nothing short of delusional. Check out this recent post for instance. Consider just the point about the shared retro-viruses, transposons, etc, that are found in the DNA of various organisms (including man and other primates) in a pattern only explicable by common descent (or intentional divine deception).