>What team evolution is saying is equal to this:
>George Washington was a founding father of the US.
>
>You want it to sound like this:
>To our current understanding George Washington was a founding
>father, but we are not sure.
>
>ID wants it to sound like this:
>There is no real proof that George Washington was a founding
>father.
>
>The thing is, absolute certainty can of course never exists as
>it always filters through the observer. We don't know that
>this is not a matrix and we are all batteries (even if that
>was stupid). However we must be able to sit down and say that
>we know enough about these things that it for example is
>taught as truth to children. Because in every day speech that
>is exactly what it is. Same as they are taught that George
>Washington was a founding father. And honestly, I doubt you
>would be as critical to the statement about George Washington.
>And that is a proof I guess how hard it is to convey
>scientific values to the public as it is hard to see any
>difference between pseud science and real science and those
>who yell the loudest will get the most attention.

That's not entirely accurate, or at least, its not the same argument. We can say that for the history of our nation to be accurate necessitates that George Washington is the founding father of our country. However, the fact that life exists on Earth does not necessitate that evolution is the only mechanism for it. Nor does the fact that there are observable qualities to the theory of evolution necessitate that it is mutually exclusive from any outside influence or additional mechanics.

The "phenomena of George Washington being the first president of the United States" is something that is in its entirety observable, whereas "the creation of man" is not.