There IS debate in the scientific world. There are thousands of scientists out there who are hold to ID. Evolution is a theory in the same way ID is, but not like gravity. Gravity is a Law. We can see gravity happening, we can reproduce it, test it, etc. Both evolution and ID are interpretations of evidence that's left over from whatever actually happened, not actual observations of something that can be tested and reproduced.

You're welcome to think that, but it's a naive view. I absolutely LOVE science, and have spent years and years of my life reading about it and taking classes about it. However, in all that reading and studying, I've found that to me there's much more evidence for Intelligent Design and a young earth than there is for evolution and an old earth. You can accuse me of avoiding the facts and such all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that I have not done so. Niether have many of my personal friends who are also in the sciences and hold the same view.

What you're misunderstanding is that evolution is a theory, a set of ideas to explain the raw data we have aquired through such fields as archaeology, biology, chemistry, etc. So is Intelligent design. Neither is scientifically proveable, and thus to believe one is just as "scientific" as the other. We cannot go back in time and observe the events regarding the beginning of the universe and life, so all we can do is use the incomplete evidence we have to come up with theories. One major one explains almost all the data quite nicely, but requires a belief in at least some sort of intelligence who got everythign going. The other explains less of the data, with quite a few holes, but does not require belief in a God. That's the real reason so many hold to it. I'm willing to believe there's an intelligence behind everything because that better fits the facts.

It's not a "false" dichotomy, though. Either you believe God exists or you don't. If you do, there's no actual evidence to take the first few chapters of Genesis as figurative. If you don't, you have to completely throw out anything that has to do with him, and cling to an explanation devoid of God; currently that's evolution.

There will always be that battle - the worst you can do be caught in the middle.

Cain married one of the only women on the planet, one of his sisters (Genesis 5:4 - Adam and Eve had quite a few kids). There's nothing wrong about that - there was no other option. And people lived much longer then (warmer climate, much more oxygen, etc.), giving them the chance to have a lot more kids, thus within a few hundered years the population would be quite large. Couples today can have 20 kids, so even if that's as many as people had back then, in a few generations you'd have enough for a small city. In 4, well, you'd have a huge one.

If you actually read Enoch's geneology, at every point it says "so-and-so had so-and-so... and had other sons and daughters". Not a straight line. It's just focusing on the line that led to Enoch, as he's the person of importance in that context.

And regarding your last point, miracles have happened all throughout history. If you refuse to believe they have, then of course they're going to seem rediculous. The definition of a miracle is God intervening and altering earth's laws of physics/biology/etc. And all evidence points to Jesus being God, so it's no surprise he came that way.

Essentially the case brought up by many is this: teach both. In my studies of the topic, I've found that there's evidence that seems to support both sides of the issue. The hard fact is, we don’t have proof of either theory, we just have data, which is always open to interpretation. We cannot observe the events that led to/created life, we just have archaeological data. What schools should teach, then, is not the conclusions, but the raw data. Teach students to analyze that data and fairly teach both theories (both the good and the bad), and let them decide which theory they think best fits. If Evolution better fits the facts, then let them make that decision. If Intelligent Design does, then leave that up to the student. The point is, when there are valid cases made for two sides of an argument, it is intellectually dishonest to only teach one side. That doesn't teach kids how to reason and use logic, it teaches them to blindly believe whatever they're taught. It's the same reason so many math classes stress proofs.

What I see is many from each side afraid of the other side being taught, but they shouldn't be. If their theory fits the facts, it should hold its own. I have to say that I see the intelligent design side faring better in this aspect, as most don't want evolution NOT taught, just their side taught as well, whereas most people on the evolution side are adamantly opposed to Intelligent Design being taught.

Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure people have been believing in Intelligent Design for thousands of years...

Religion is one's view of God. Athiests have a view of God, and that is that he isn't. Therefore, athiesm is a religion.

Atheism is a belief. Belief is the acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Athiests accept that the statement "there is no God" is true, therefore they beleive it.

Think of it this way - if you travel to a country, and there are Budda statues everywhere, you assume that country is mostly of the Buddist religion. If you go to a country with crosses everywhere, it is a sign that the country is mostly Christian. If you travel to a country and there are no "religious" symbols anywhere, it is a sign that the country is mostly athiest. Atheism's religious symbol is nothingness.

And evolutionists don't censor the creationist view out of their textbooks? The IDers here are simply defending themselves since they can't get a word in edgewise in the education system. You must look at both sides here. Both sides (IDers and Evolutionists) are debating something that cannot be scientifically proven (by the definition of science). Therefore, it is really a topic of metaphisics. In that case, both sides should be allowed to be in the textbooks, and, as you said, stand on their own merit. Let students think for themselves, weigh the evidence, and come to their own conclusions. Have we lowered our standards to the point where we can't expect students to do that?

OK, so you just made a claim that essentially the Bible is bs and that there is no God. I'm not going to believe you unless you can support that claim. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that making unfounded claims is the kind of thing that makes these forums so unhelpful and shallow.