I've delayed responding, because frankly I'm not so sure it's worth drawing out this insanity. Honestly, John, you need to go and actually read some of this stuff before you open your mouth on it. You have demonstrated aboslutely no understanding whatsoever of the science of evolutionary biology; you just come along and make broad, uninformed statements. It's impossible to have any kind of serious or worthwhile discussion with someone who doesn't bother to be informed on a complex technical issue, who instead just strikes a skeptical pose that looks more foolish than intelligent. Above I linked to a research paper on evolution, and yet, without reading it, you still persist on mindlessly claiming that evolution has no scientific status. Here's an idea: read the actual paper, and then come back with a real argument about why this work is unscientific. If you can't access the paper, I can send you a copy. Or how about this - why don't you give us real details on why you think the mainstream scientific evidence for human evolution is actually unscientific? Tell us, in detail, what your issues are with the series of homind fossils scientists have put forward as evidence of human evolution? Or, tell us why specific, recent, random mutations, unique to humans and chimps are not powerful evidence of common ancestry? Regarding creationism in court: I linked to the Wikipedia sites for the decisions because from there it's easy to find the text of the decisions, and you can actually read them for yourself. I have. Have you? All you say is that they are related to the Establishment Clause. I also linked to the most comprehensive book on the subject of Creationism and the law. Go read it - you'll see that Creationists have really had their day in court, their chance to challenge the scientific status of evolution in a court of law. Creationists have had a chance to question working scientists on the witness stand, discussing fossils, geology, the age of the earth, comparative genomics, the bacterial flagellum - the actual substance of the scientific evidence for evolution. Creationists have had ample opportunity to cross-examine scientists about the evidence for evolution. The real technical evidence supporting evolution has been important in these Establishment Clause cases, because whether evolution is genuine science or just advocacy for a belief system has tremendous bearing on whether it can be permissibly taught in schools. This question has been examined in detail in multiple cases, and in every case where the question came up, evolution was ruled to be science, and creationism was ruled to be not science. In court, evolution has been subject to the same scrutiny as creationism. Tell me, what specific parts of the NAS guidelines (and I'm not even sure of what "guidelines" you're referring to") condemn evolution as well? What exactly is it about evolution that supposedly makes it unscientific? Go read the transcripts and the ruling in the McClean and Kitzmiller cases - I really doubt that you personally would do better than the Creationist defense lawyers in these cases, cases where Creationist lawyers has a chance to cross-examine scientists about the scientific evidence supporting evolution. Tell me, what would you have asked Kevin Padian (the paleontologist), or Kenneth Miller (the cell biologist) in cross-examination if you had been on the Dover school district's legal team? That would have been your big chance to destroy Darwinism in a real court, not some fantasy court confined to your own imagination. If you really think you have legitimate doubts about evolution, how about reading some serious stuff about the entire branch of science that you question? You could start by checking this book out of the library: Evolution, by Nicholas Barton, Derek Briggs, Jonathan Eisen, et al. - a standard undergrad evolution textbook. A more advanced book is Principles of Population Genetics, by Daniel Hartl and Andrew Clark. Forget websites, magazine articles, wikipedia browsing, blog posts - you think you could actually destroy creationism in a court of law? You're just kidding yourself (and not fooling the rest of us) if you don't actually have any substantial knowledge about evolution. As you read these books, test yourself on your knowledge. Here are some questions you should be able to answer if you understand evolution: - How do scientists estimate the age of the earth? - How do scientists estimate mutation rates? - How well do phylogenetic trees based on DNA match up with phylogenetic trees based on fossils? How do researchers explain any discrepancies? - How do researchers date transposable elements in the genome? - What features of hominid fossils from the last 6 million years do researchers claim are intermediate between apes and humans? - What is a processed pseudogene? How do scientists use them to discern evolutionary relationships? - How do researchers quantify the strength of natrual selection? What is the quantitative relationship between the strength of natural selection and the time required for a gene to be fixed in an entire population? What observed examples are there, on a human timescale, of a particular trait or gene becoming fixed in a wild population? - What is neutral evolution? What is near-neutral evolution, and what characteristics of a population influence whether DNA evolves neutrally or near-neutrally? - What features of the fossil Tiktaalik roseae do scientists say are intermediate between fish and tetrapods? What was the evolutionary reasoning researchers used to identify likely locations of transitional fossils like Tiktallik? - What specific features of human and ape chromosomes have lead scientists to postulate that major chromosomal rearrangements occurred after humans and chimps diverged? What implications do these chromosomal features have for our understanding of evolution? If you're really, truly, serious about searching for weaknesses in the science of evolution, you should understand the mainstream scientific answers to questions like these. If you don't really care, if you're just striking a skeptical pose to be contrarian, stop wasting people's time.