As far as the current debate.. How do you prove something that happen way in the past? Because one beleives science says one thing does not mean it is correct… I remember a book a number of years ago, about a number of science fact with were proven… Well it turned out all of the science
facts proven were disproven later…

Life cannot have possibly evolved; the resulting life that has been created is just too dumb and poorly designed. I mean, look at the penguins – talk about unintelligent design - why would anyone build penguins out of bird DNA? It would be much easier and intelligent to make something like that out of mammal DNA. After all they can’t fly, so why are they a type of bird? Duh. So all life must have been created by a designer, but that designer was a bit … slow. I mean, I just dare you to take a look at a wombat and look me in the eye and tell me that whoever built that goofy thing was intelligent. And don’t even get me started on the human appendix. What is that thing for? Not only is it useless, it also tends to EXPLODE at random intervals, killing the organism. Smooth move, designer. Nice one. And those woolly mammoths you made, what was the point of that? They’re all dead, Mr. Designer. Why design something that was doomed to die before any of us could appreciate them? So much wasted design effort. In fact, most living species were designed with major flaws that have caused them to go extinct. These are obvious, amateurish design mistakes that are, frankly, dumb. So we can only surmise that life was designed by a dimwitted being of some kind. Who created freaking mosquitoes for us to enjoy. And blind cave crayfishes. And frogs that can only lay their eggs on one weird species of plant that lives up in the tops of tall rainforest trees. And billions of stars that have absolutely no purpose at all. Creating all those stars couldn’t have been easy, why not just make them all smaller and closer to us if they were needed to light up the sky, rather than going through the trouble of making them so huge and spreading them all over the universe like you did. That was a lot of needless work on your part. C’mon, designer, you’ve got to think about this stuff. Here’s a clue: maybe if hadn’t been flitting all over the universe stupidly creating useless galaxies and stuff, you could’ve spent a wee bit more time figuring out what to do with our appendixes. LIKE HAVING THEM EXCRETE MOSQUITO REPELLANT!

New Scientist Article http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

and i think that most politicians will try to sound “open” to many ideas, because it makes them sound reasonable, without any specifics (i.e. direct support or condemnation of i.d.), because specifics nail them down to a viewpoint that people can disagree with. they respond in this manner on most every OTHER issue, why should this one be any different?