1. What is proof?  Is there really any PROOF of anything?  You can show me a bunch of evidence, but it's my decision whether or not I want to accept it as evidence.  Based upon the SAME evidence, one person may see it as PROOF, whereas another would NOT.  What may be proof to me may not be proof to you.  I behold nature and see it as solid proof of God's existence, goodness and handiwork (Romans 1:20). 

2. Einstein saw this as well.  Perhaps you don't see nature as evidence of God.  But the paramount question still remains, where did all this come from? If it evolved from stardust, then why do we still live amongst single one-cell life forms (not politicians). 

3. Why do humans have such high intelligence, but animals do not.  Why do humans have a conscience, guilt and morals which animals do not have?  Where did the moral conscience separate from the species? 

4. The answers don't exist!  Humans are humans and animals are animals (1st Corinthians 15:39).  No wonder the Bible speaks of false science (1st Timothy 6:20).  Why false?  Simply because "science" means "to study."  There is NOTHING to study about evolution!  Evolution is NOT testable, repeatable or observable.  If evolution were true, there should be millions of proofs of it.  There is not even one!

ok

ok

ok, nice!

1. The evidence and proof is there, you are either ignorant of it or choose not to accept it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it's really not subjective either.  You say nature is evidence of god, but there is actually no proof there, you're just using it to justify your own beliefs.

2. Actually, no he didn't, but I digress. We have actually done experiments to replicate the conditions we believe were present in early Earth and found that quite rapidly, organic, self-replicating molecules form rather rapidly. Basically, the first building-blocks of life. 

You also don't seem to understand natural selection or evolution. According to evolution and natural selection, why wouldn't we be living with single-celled organisms? would be the more appropriate question. When an organism evolves over long periods of time, it thrives, but that doesn't automatically mean all lesser evolved organisms die out. Some may die out, if they're competing for similar resources, but not all organisms thrive in the same environments. You're also ruling out synergistic and parasitic relationships where the evolution of of one species can eventually lead to a beneficial relationship with lesser organisms. Digestive acid-loving bacteria thrive in the stomachs of a whole range of species. The tape worm evolved and thrived because it found it thrived in a new environment in the intestines of mammals. So your one-celled argument is flawed.

3. Quite simply, we evolved a higher intelligence and thrived because of it. Cats and dogs thrived because they needed fast reactions to hunt their pray, thus their brains evolved to be smaller, but with fast nervous systems and a basic and hormonal instinct to attack anything that moves (just watch a cat play). We didn't evolve that way, we thrived because our brains enabled us to develop tools which could be used for multiple tasks. And who says animals do not have a moral conscience? How exactly have you tested this? In fact, we've selected for animals with a "morals" in our breeding and domestication programs over the years. Further proof is that dolphins will not mate with a sibling. Morals do exist in non-humans, they just may differ from ours.

Human morals are open to debate as well. A head injury can completely alter you personality and cause you to lose all your morals and behave sociopathicaly. And what of the people who are born, unable to feel empathy for others? These mental conditions exist in humans, and in many ways causes people to behave "like animals".

4. From the massive fossil records, to anatomy, to the fact we share huge (> 99%) amounts of DNA with apes. In fact, nearly 50% of the DNA in a banana is also present in us. If you go right down to the molecular level you can see how a few mutations can cause a single protein to completely change it's function, which can then have a knock on effect on the cells metabolism, effectively evolving that cell.The proof is all around us, you just need to look at it. In fact, the principles of evolution are actually being harnessed for new therapeutic drugs, some of which are already on the market, others going through clinical trials. You say it's not testable, repeatable (which is fair as the randomness of evolution means it's unlikely to give the same results twice) or observable, yet it's been tested and observed many times.

The fact that the answers can't remotely be proved means that they aren't worth the paper they're written on. Science hunts for answers but rarely puts down a rubber stamp stating that X is the answer to this, they simply list ideas that are logically (and test-ably) feasible.

It doesn't matter what you think here, or even how much close to what you see evolution is to reality.  There is the issue of parential rights on what their kids are taught.  So long as you force kids of religious parents to subject their kids to public schools, you are going to have to want them either not taught evolution, or be able to be taught something that is compatible with their religious beliefs.  If you don't like this, then enable the parents to take their kids out of the school system.  This is about parential rights.  Their kids are not your kids, and you are to have no say in what they are to be taught. 

It is simple, enable them to get out of the system if they don't like evolution, then you don't need to worry about it.  And that is why it is politics.  Again, if you don't like it, you need to propose an alternative ethics system to one based on rights.  Good luck getting that past the body politic here.

Next up comes, "But but... test scores of America, yadda yadda yadda". 

As Bertrand Russell said, in education there's the clash of three different forces pulling in different directions: there's the family will, the child will and the state will.

Me, I can't see why if a family starves a kid of food then the state steps in with social services and assistance, and if a family mistreats a kid or damages him emotionally there are civil and penal consequences, but everything about the education should be covered by a sanctuarium.

Shouldn't in the same way the collectivity be allowed to intervene for a kid that is intellectually starved or mistreated? The child is not a property of his/her parents, but a person with basic rights to health, instruction and pursuit of happiness.

The family has a great role in the education of children, and I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed in principle to communicate their values and beliefs in a measure. But while an adult can responsably be a vegetarian, most times a vegetarian diet is unbalanced and hardly health safe for a growing kid, and there have been cases where the state stepped in for malnourished children subjected to it. In the same way one thing is to preach to a peer, another is to unproperly educate a child from the position of strength of the parental role.

(Of course it's politics, everything is :) )

One last response.

This is an age old problem.  The simple fact is that, in the end, unless there is some sort of consistency then standards will fall and if taken to the extreme the society will simply fail... a nice example of social evolution in a sense.

From my perspective, I don't live in America but Europe, and so far I'm happier with our approach to this aspect of edcucation than America's... although there's plenty else I could find fault with too with our methods.

But again, that's because our societies aren't in some mythical 'final' perfect state.  They are in transition as everything is, and in the long run they will either prosper or fail based on how well they adapt to the needs of survivial.

I think Creationism is a crock. And that's because all scientific evidence points to it. How do explain similarities in dogs and wolves, although they are different animals. Evolution. I could bring in tons of other examples, but I don't want to get into a religious debate, because unlike video games, I don't take this argument based on emotion but on EVIDENCE AT ALL TIMES.

Evolution = countless theories and evidences that are falsifiable and testable and lead to the theory being highly accurate

Creationism = .....God did it

And the only reason they even say "God did it" is based on a book, written thousands of years ago BY MAN, that also says eating pork, working on Sunday, and women not completely obeying their husbands is wrong and is a sin. You can't pick and choose with these kinds of things. It's either all or none. Same with science (this talking about creationists also). You can't believe in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. but as soon as it conflicts with your unsubstantiated belief, you say science is wrong.

And this is coming from a Christian man. But I will say that I am not the Christian that's Bible thumping (obviously) and says that everything else is wrong. I believe that as long as you live a moral life, treat others as you would treat yourself, and follow the rational rules of life (not killing, stealing, etc), you will have eternal peace. But then again, all religions tell you that if you look at the overarching principles of them