Speaking as a teacher of science let me clear up a few misconceptions:

1) NOTHING in science is proven. The evidence supports, but NEVER proves, a theory.

2) Theory IS NOT equal to hypothesis. Terms may be used interchangeably by lay people (and even science educators) but to a scientist, they are not the same. A hypothesis is an educated guess (and is what most lay people mean when they use the term theory.) A theory is a predictive description of the world around us that is supported by a large enough amount of observations and experiments to be PROVISIONALLY accepted as true. New evidence and observations can change the theory.

3) The Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection has tons (literally!) of evidence in support of it. While there is debate about the EXACT workings of the mechanism, there is currently NO scientific debate about the validity of the theory.

4) A basic rule of science is that SUPERNATURAL explanations are not allowed. This DOES NOT mean that they cannot be true or science says that god cannot exist, only that he cannot be used as an explanation.

5) Having read much of the latest works on Intelligent Design, I can say with certainty that their arguments are based on misquotes, outdated science, half-truths and outright lies. The very bottom line for ID arguments is: “If you cannot explain EVERY doubt we raise, then your theory MUST be wrong and ours MUST be right.” That is not science nor is it logical.

6) While CHANCE plays a role in creating mutations, NATURAL SELECTION is a sieve that sorts those mutations. Additionally, the rules of chemistry LIMIT how elements combine, which again limits the available number of proteins, etc.

An example (albeit slightly incorrect in that natural selection has no defined endpoint to reach) is a program to generate random letters writing the Constitution. Without a filter, it is nearly impossible. With the constitution as a filter (keep letters that are in the right place and get rid of those that are not) the task is accomplished in a few minutes. If the rules of English spelling and syntax are used, a valid document could be reached (even if it is not the Constitution of the United States.)

ID proponents argue as if there is a specific endpoint that must be reached. This is not necessarily the case. Given different conditions, or different mutations, different solutions could be reached. As an example, mollusks use hemocyanin instead of hemoglobin (copper instead of iron) as an oxygen transport.

It is my opinion that the lack of support for the masses in this country is the result of a lack of understanding of the theory because it is often not taught or taught with misconceptions in schools while it is railed against in churches often utilizing:
misconceptions: “We came from monkeys”
misquotes: “God does not play dice with the universe.” (Einstein believed in god)
outdated science: “There are no transition fossils.”
Half-truths: “The fossil record does not contain smooth transitions.”
Lies: “The eye is a complex structure that must have been designed. It either works or it doesn’t”

In EVERY SINGLE CASE where the evidence is fairly considered (ie: court) the scientific basis of evolution has been upheld, the religious basis and agenda of ID has been exposed (even by highly conservative judges appointed by a conservative republican president) and laws have been struck down.

If you want to debate the evidence then GO GET EDUCATED and leave your inane insults unspoken. If you want to discuss evolution, go learn what it says and look at the evidence. Leave your DOGMA at home and stop calling a skunk a kitten: it will still stink.