} Firstly, you meant "exclude."
} Secondly, the term "microevolution" is a misnomer. The mechanisms of
} evolution are not confined by any sort of time period or limitation on
} the amount of change produced, and if you accept "microevolution," you
} MUST accept "macroevolution" as well. There's no rational
} differentiation to be made between the process by which antibiotic
} resistance is bred into viruses and the process by which humans
} evolved from primate ancestors. The only conceivable argument anyone
} can make against the idea of "macroevolution" is that evolution itself
} hasn't been going on very long (e.g. the Earth was poofed into
} existence 6000 some-odd years ago), and that the slow changes we see
} where living things are adapting to their surroundings isn't actually
} responsible for the types of life that we currently see. Even with this
} convoluted reasoning in place, it's still impossible to refute that
} these creatures will eventually evolve into different creatures through
} that mechanism.
} The difference between the "fairy tale" of an omnipotent creator and
} the "fairy tale" of lightning soup, even though neither is 100%
} verifiable (except of course by yours truly, but nobody ever listens to
} ME), is that one is naturalistic and one is supernatural. Science
} thrives on the conception of naturalism, and abhors any supernatural
} shenanigans, because that's the only way it can work. If it did not, we
} might still believe that the planets orbited around the Sun because
} angels pushed them in their celestial orbits; the supernatural is
} designed to fill the space left by what humans do not know, and in
} occupying this space, has a tendency to stagnate inquiries into other
} ways that the universe might work. (The church did not take kindly to
} the thought of a heliocentric universe, for instance.) If we simply
} throw up our hands and say "A WIZARD DID IT!", we're stifling
} potential exploration of other naturalistic causes for phenomena that
} may actually turn out to be correct.
} The point of education is not to "force belief," it is to provide the
} most meaningful tools to understand and work with one's surroundings.
} Science is an incredible tool for such, and in order for science to
} work, it must begin with the assumption that all phenomena are caused
} by natural phenomena. ID stands in direct opposition to this central
} tenet. As such, it is not to be tolerated in a science classroom.
} You owe the Oracle a scientific paper on the generation of ablative
} plasma jets via leprechauns.