I am now going to cheat, but just a little.
I read this blog called "The Freedom of Nonbelief: K is for Kidding" today and I wrote a long comment. I found myself thinking, this could be a whole post! So now it is. The 'nonbeliever' is Timothy Brannan, and here is my response to his A to Z post today. (I used the same title, not just because he did, but because I so often find myself saying "You've got to be kidding!", and laughing uproariously, when I hear the latest 'scientific' claims made by supposedly scientific thinkers)
OK Tim, I'll bite.
I don't fit into the category of your typical follower (the comments above mine). I take issue with the kind of wide brush painting you did with this line:
People will argue about "teaching the controversy" but there is none. No one with any bit of scientific background that isn't blinded by faith thinks there is any other plausable theory other than evolution.
Of course there is great controversy, and it is created by those on both sides having much scientific background and mountains of facts. It is the interpretation of the facts that must be understood and judged well.
I have my BS in Geology from the U of Wisconsin. I know the strength of evidence for evolution that was 'forced down my throat' and it isn't very impressive. It consists of a few tidbits of facts ("a lot of animals have 5 bones in their forelimbs")and a whole series of assumptions connected by implausible guesses ("this means they evolved from each other")
The line-up of facts supporting a recent creation is much more scientifically supportable. For example, a sudden supernatural creation of life does not violate the long held LAW of biogenesis as evolutionary theory does.
Dianna Fielding, in her comment above, said; theories have evidence. Evidence by itself is only part of the issue. Evidence regarding something that is unrepeatable and was unobserved by man(like our beginnings)is far from proof. Every bit of real life evidence must fit into a worthy theory for it to stand. Contraindicating evidence must therefore demand that the theory be modified, and that without eliminating any other bit of evidence from the new theory.
I recommend this book that I reviewed on my blog for its feat of addressing just about every physical fact you can name in its theory (yes, just a theory). The scientific facts we all know (and love?) exclude the possibility of evolutionary, naturalistic origins. Some people of a different 'faith' seem to resent this factual claim, but they must deal with it as rationally as possible.
By the way, the whole book, in its 8th edition now, is available online. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
Take a look, unless you really must not admit that there is credible science behind creationism.