Pwcca - I was referring to your religious upbringing and your thoughts on the creation/evolution discussion that was really at hand. Which is an easily perceived inquisition, you are just being difficult now.

I will take the large post advice under consideration, as I agree with your point there. My point was that the response was a direct answer to all the points raised by Kriminal.

To get this back on track. The main problem that I have with the subject is that supposedly Evolution is "based on science." Yet science is just the current level of discovery. If it can be tested and experiments can be devised, performed and reproduced by others, then we take that as the current best knowledge available.
When other ideas surpass and give a better match to the universe, we simple drop the old and adopt the new. These in turn are discarded as better ideas more closely match the universe. (I borrowed the previous as it was expressed well) We have seen this in Evolution. The theories of ten years ago are considered silly. Most modern day evolutionists don't even believe we descended from Apes any more. It is constantly changing to fit the facts. So if the idea is constantly changing, why do we teach it as fact?

Many of the steps required to support the theory have been disproven, or never been reproduced. (spontaneous generation, macroevolution, Avida etc). The theory is largely based on the introduction of mutations, which when one examines the evidence, mutations are rarely beneficial, and have never introduced new genetic information (and if TRUE science prevailed never will ((as it has never happened in the past and there is no reason/evidence to assume that it would)) which would be necessary to form a new species. Mutations are composed of the dropping of contained information, or the duplicating of already contained information (ie down syndrome) Scientists have been able to induce the loss of legs by inorganic introduction of a leg growth suppressing gene. This was done in an effort to prove that houseflies developed from crustaceons. However, that gene was already inherent in the animal. You can induce suppression of an already available gene, however, you can't generate new gene information. You can take away what's there, but you can't change it to something new, its just never been done or proven. You can't present the information as fact, when much of the evidence disproves it, or no more proves evolution than I.D.

There is also confusion as the creationist model. They do not believe that adaptations within species cannot happen. They do not believe that the modern day dog or wolf did not have an earlier canine ancestor. This would be reproduction in kind. They do believe that the frog and the bird did not come from the same ancestor, they are two completely different animals. Microevolution some would say has been proven (though mutations and changes are induced) but even in this model that is able to be tested and experimented with, bacteria reproduce in kind (ie E-coli becomes a variation of E-coli) This is now inducted as proof of evolution, when in fact, it really has only proven that if you introduce changes to the living material, it will only produce a variation of that same type of living material.