Is ANY alternative hypothesis required in order to criticize the “only” hypothesis?
We can’t just say “that hypothesis has holes” unless an alternative is offered?
Who made these rules?
I believe it’s called the scientific method.
I would be more than happy to address any of the issues you find with evolution; I’m sure there has been some manner of misunderstanding, but evolution does account for all the current data. We are still working on the precise details of course, as is every branch of science, but the fact that natural selection explains life is no longer in serious doubt. Perhaps you could raise a particular point and we could discuss it?
As it happens, I would have no problem with presenting the material this way in a college classroom, or possibly even advanced high school classes (asking for, and answering, objections to evolution) however the point of classes in high school is to get the facts as we know them, and at the moment, evolution really IS a fact, as much so as gravity is. Remember, unlike in layman’s terms, in science the word “Theory” is a very specific term referring to “an overarching explanation accounting for all the data” such as the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease.
The scientific method is the foundation of science. If you don't like the rules that demand you offer a better theory before displacing the currently accepted one, head on over to philosophy or religion class.
There is a difference between the scientific meaning of "hypothesis," "theory," and "law," which many nonscientists are not familiar with. Here are some simple definintions. An abstract:
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
This is why there is both a law of gravity, and a theory of gravity, incidentally.
You can critique the theory of evolution all you want, but it has been supported with repeated testing, and predictions. To substitute a different theory, you'd have to have a stronger body of evidence, with testing and predictons stronger than that seen for evolution. So far, I've seen no testing or predictions for ID or creationism.