The problem, fundamentally, T'punk and SW, is that you simply do not know what science is.
The revelatory statement is this: "I just have taken it to belief that God created man and that no one can prove otherwise to me."
First off, science is not a belief system. Its theories, and their supports, are based on material reality: we get a better picture of material reality, the theories necessarily change. (Yes, I've read Kuhn, Feyerabend and other discussions of the history of science. Have you?) As Gould and others have been pointing out for going on two centuries (!), the way science adapts to new facts is not a sign of weakness in method, but of strength.
Why? Because unlike the pure faith cited, scientific theories are indeed falsifiable. They can be tested by observation and experiment, as religious beliefs cannot. Otherwise, they would not be science. The results can be duplicated, as religious experience cannot.
If you'll actually LOOK at the discussions of Gould and others, you'll find things that you will not find in the cheap TV shows and pseudo-scientific "Institute for Creation Science," nonsense--including a certain humility, a willingness to accept new data, and an interest in re-examining one's own premises. But then, personally I find it incredibly arrogant to announce that God gave ME the Truth and nobody else, that everybody has to play by my MY rules or burn in hell--and that I don't have to look at the data in order to know it all.
And again, science rests on a willingness to think about who we are and what the world is. If your mind's made up, if you're afraid of the data and the theories, that's going to be hard to do.
The real reasons people refuse to look at the data and the ideas seriously have very little to do with the integrity of scientific thought. They have to do with a stubborn insistence that Man is the center of the universe, that (sorry, folks, but it is in part a racial fantasy) we did not originate in Africa, that men are superior to women (oddly, the creationists often borrow evolutionary arguments when it suits their purposes), that their set of morals is better than anyone else's (note how often evolution gets linked to claims that them lesbians and leftists is a-takin' over our schools?), that capitalism is great (again, note the adoption of social Darwinist ideas).
The posts are revealing: when you say, "I don't need to look," when you cite cheesy TV, well....you gots a problem arguing. For example--I know the fundamentalist Christian arguments about this, the ICS claims, and a good deal about the Bible. But I also know the scientific method, some of the basic texts involved (like Darwin), and a lot of the modern discussion from folks like Gould. You don't, and you tell me you won't look. So...unless we start dragging the Almighty into it, who wins the discussion?
I also note that, as usual, there's a continued avoidance of certain issues. Like the fantasy that Christians cannot legitimately accept and/or teach evolution--good to know the Pope isn't a good Christian.
There are a lot of things in education that offend the hell out of students and parents. And ya know what? Good. Education isn't about learning lists of aimless, well-edited facts. It isn't about being patted on the head and reassured. It's about learning what is true, insofar as we know what is true. And it's about learning to think. And, it's about growing up.
To me, those are among the REAL offenses of evolutionary theory.
I agree, that I have not found one theory or piece of evidence that explains all the questions.*)
