Is this wise to take away the name of God from our school teachings?

Right. Evolution is just a theory. Gravity is just a theory. Nobody really can explain how gravity works, but there is no better explanation than the scientific one. Why don't you challenge gravity and say the magic man does it? Show me the EVIDENCE. The problem is that cretinists set up experiments deliberately to draw their pre-conceived (preferred) conclusion and ignore contradictory data. Scientists work the other way around: collect all the data and observe the facts, then draw the best conclusion that is consistent with ALL of the facts.

The other problem cretinists have is they do not know what a theory is: Creationists argue that evolution is "only a theory and cannot be proven."

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

Creationists refuse to subject their "theories" to peer reviews, because they know they don't fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of "good science" (creationism) vs. "bad science" (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation "scientists" are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.

Your videos conveniently leave out details that immediately contradict the arguments they are making.

I will not present or address specific challenges to evolution or cretinism. Both are adequately addressed in scientific publications and on the internet.

StarGateCode:

You say will refute the evidence for evolution "step by step with science facts." How, pray tell, are you going to do this when your knowledge about science is so absymally low?

For example: you don't seem to have understood my comment about Lamarckism, so let me spell it out for you. You are saying that the changes int cranial morphology in Adriatic Sea lizards is due to exercising certain parts of the jaw to accomodate their new diet of plants rather than bugs. You compare this to a man working out and developing his muscles, the suggestion being that the change in jaw shape (and the change in muscle size) are passed down through the generations. This is how Lamarck explained evolution. Yet anyone who knows even the slightest thing about genetics knows that these changes that are acquired during the life of the parent organism, are not passed down to the offspring. Now, this is just very, very simple, basic science that you seem to be utterly unaware of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

^THIS IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN. IT WAS DISCREDITED ABOUT A CENTURY AGO.

You also described what you believe to be the evolution of lions. Apparently you think there was a period where lions had only three legs; the fourth was somehow emerging from the body as he "moved his deformed body around." Do I even need to comment on this? I mean...are you really that ignorant?? Is this seriously what you think the theory of evolution says? That's pathetic.

And as Dan pointed out, like so many other creationists you further display your ignorance with the 'just a theory' argument. Yes, evolution is a theory; so is relativity, heliocentrism, atoms, and germs as the carriers of disease. Creationism, on the other hand, isn't even a theory.

This is just scratching the surface of your ignorance; it is really quite immense!! See how much you've displayed how little you know? So forgive me if I don't exactly take your talk of science seriously. Your are in over your head. You are way, way, way out of your element.

I have better things to do with my time than present scientific evidence to a person who is demonstrably pig-ignorant of science, prefers to stay that way, is proud of it, and has a fundamentally pre-modern, anti-science outlook. The evidence is out there. Your rejection of evolution has nothing to do with evidence or lack thereof, and everything to do with blind, irrational faith.

'Those lizards didn't change in snakes or flying dragons. Eating harder stuff made their mouth muscles harder and changed the shape of their heads of course. If you try to cross a dog with a cat won't work or a cow with a horse the same way, and you cannot find a lamb with an eagle head anywhere in the world.'

That has exactly what to do with evolution? I'll tell you: nothing at all.

I shall spell it out in short, simple sentences:

Evolution is not about one species breeding with or giving birth to another.

Of course the lizards didn't change into snakes, flying dragons, six legged monkeys or anything else. Things don't happen that fast. Any radical changes would take centuries, if not milennia.

Every biologist would love to find an alternative to evolution- they would be more famous than Darwin and incredibly rich. However, despite over 100 years of trying, there is no reasonable alternative.

Your complete ignorance of science is astounding. You have no clue about the basics of scientific methods, and don't even understand the concept of a scientific theory.

StarGateCode's ignorance is downright scary.

SGC: would you mind telling us what your level of education is?

Are you a high school graduate?

If so, from which country?

Your ignorance about basic science is literally unbelievable, as in, I'm not sure whether or not to believe you are really as ignorant as you are making yourself out to be. I'm having trouble accepting it; I want to understand how this level of ignorance, if it is real, came to be. Obviously you have access to a computer, so I assume you live in a developed 'first world' nation. If that's so, then how did this happen? How did you 'fall through the cracks' like this? Didn't anyone notice? Or is the school system just really shytti where you live?

Help me understand, SGC. Why do you think evolution has anything to do with exercise, or hybridization, or with rocks?? Something's not adding up here.

I just read on the front page of the Denver paper today that the Denver Public School system (2933 students) has an 87% rate of D and F scores in Earth Science http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_9628638. this goes a long way toward explaining all the creationist nonsense. These people have no basic understanding of science and are out of touch with reality. They can only parrot what they hear at church.