Hmm, the fact that schools won't let other hypotheses of the formation of the universe doesn't factor into this?

What you are referring to is the Creationist's failed attempt to sneak religion into science class, commonly referred to as "teaching the controversy". What you fail to mention is that there is no controversy!

but people who are willing to withstand peer pressure will come to the conclusion that the hypothesis of macro-evolution has some major holes in it.

Let me guess. You won't be referring to people like Behe would you? How about Ray "Banana" Comfort? It also has nothing to do with "peer pressure". It has to do with the practice of science. Y...

Hmm, the fact that schools won't let other hypotheses of the formation of the universe doesn't factor into this?

What you are referring to is the Creationist's failed attempt to sneak religion into science class, commonly referred to as "teaching the controversy". What you fail to mention is that there is no controversy!

but people who are willing to withstand peer pressure will come to the conclusion that the hypothesis of macro-evolution has some major holes in it.

Let me guess. You won't be referring to people like Behe would you? How about Ray "Banana" Comfort? It also has nothing to do with "peer pressure". It has to do with the practice of science. You're not going to find much of that at the Discovery Institute.

Evolution, like all theories, does indeed have some major holes in it, and is constantly being revised. Nothing to be afraid of; science is like that - it accumulates knowledge a piece at a time. When evolutionists over-sell it as problem-free, creationists - who know where the inconsistencies lie - imagine a conspiracy. And that take on evolution happens more on the street than in the academy, I think.

Creationism, on the other hand, is rooted in an unreasonably literal, un-informed view of the Bible.

I suspect the real issue - as in so many things - is about learning how to think objectively, and to see one's argument through one's opponent's eyes. This battle's a symptom of an educat...

Evolution, like all theories, does indeed have some major holes in it, and is constantly being revised. Nothing to be afraid of; science is like that - it accumulates knowledge a piece at a time. When evolutionists over-sell it as problem-free, creationists - who know where the inconsistencies lie - imagine a conspiracy. And that take on evolution happens more on the street than in the academy, I think.

Creationism, on the other hand, is rooted in an unreasonably literal, un-informed view of the Bible.

I suspect the real issue - as in so many things - is about learning how to think objectively, and to see one's argument through one's opponent's eyes. This battle's a symptom of an educational problem that's larger than these two issues: teaching people how to evaluate what they hear and communicate it effectively to others.

the fact that schools won't let other hypotheses of the formation of the universe doesn't factor into this

If those "other" hypothesis actually had some scientific research behind them that went further than "god did it" with testable and provable results then I'm sure they would be included.

Perhaps you could clarify and present a few of those "other" hypothesis?

I believe in micro-evolution, there is plenty evidence for that; but people who are willing to withstand peer pressure will come to the conclusion that the hypothesis of macro-evolution has some major holes in it.

If you believe in micro-evolution then you believe in macro-evolution. Macro evolution i...

the fact that schools won't let other hypotheses of the formation of the universe doesn't factor into this

If those "other" hypothesis actually had some scientific research behind them that went further than "god did it" with testable and provable results then I'm sure they would be included.

Perhaps you could clarify and present a few of those "other" hypothesis?

I believe in micro-evolution, there is plenty evidence for that; but people who are willing to withstand peer pressure will come to the conclusion that the hypothesis of macro-evolution has some major holes in it.

If you believe in micro-evolution then you believe in macro-evolution. Macro evolution is simply A LOT of micro evolution experienced over time.

Saying that you don't believe in the macro when you accept the micro is like saying "I believe that apple seeds are real but I don't believe in apple trees" or "I believe we can use tools to tighten nuts but I don't believe we can use tools to build cars". Or "I believe we can use numbers less than 10 to do addition math, but I don't believe we can use numbers greater than 10 to do addition math".

I suspect the real issue - as in so many things - is about learning how to think objectively

I dunno. I think the only problem here is that religion refuses to admit when it is wrong - regardless if its actually wrong or a perception of being wrong. The story of genesis talks about god just creating but does not describe the mechanics in which he used to do so. Since nothing was mentioned then believers immediatly take the stance that things just "popped" into existence and the idea of evolution contradicts their belief.

Had religious leaders used their heads they could have easily turned evolution into a positive for their belief system by simply explaining it as a method in which god works. It is through their own arrogance and ignorance that religion has created a controversy on the matter.

In an attempt to right wrongs, i will reply to Oortcloud's comment. At the risk of re-enacting biology class, i am forced to point out that you are wrong when discussing the difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro is simply change within a species that adjusts to environment.... this is well documented, whether you want to talk about moths or Eskimos. Macro evolution is the complete changing OF a species into another species. This has never been observed or backed with enough credible fossil evidence to substantiate. So there is a difference, even if the only difference is the (lack of) observable evidence within the realm of science (science is what we are talking about, right?)...

In an attempt to right wrongs, i will reply to Oortcloud's comment. At the risk of re-enacting biology class, i am forced to point out that you are wrong when discussing the difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro is simply change within a species that adjusts to environment.... this is well documented, whether you want to talk about moths or Eskimos. Macro evolution is the complete changing OF a species into another species. This has never been observed or backed with enough credible fossil evidence to substantiate. So there is a difference, even if the only difference is the (lack of) observable evidence within the realm of science (science is what we are talking about, right?).
Onto the claim that creationists never describe the mechanics of creation itself by God - they do claim that God created it out of nothing (unless you are a theistic evolutionist). This is, of course, outside of the realm of science as well; however the claim of most creationists/intelligent design folks is that there are clues and evidence pointing to the fact that the earth was not a cosmic accident.
Personally, I think it is quite possible that God engineered the evolution of the earth as it is; but that is not what i think actually happened. More than that though, i think it is ludicrous to say that the world formed itself, as did human DNA and everything else... it frustrates me that "scientists" everywhere have dismissed everything but darwinian evolution out of hand and refuse to open up the possibility that there are other scenarios. That is not scientific and it is elitist.

In an attempt to educate the ignorant, I will reply to timbucs2's comment.

Macro-Evolution observed in the lab
Macro-Evolution observed in African Lake
OTHER observed speciation (marcro-evolution) events

it frustrates me that "scientists" everywhere have dismissed everything but darwinian evolution out of hand and refuse to open up the possibility that there are other scenarios

What "other" ...

In an attempt to educate the ignorant, I will reply to timbucs2's comment.

Macro-Evolution observed in the lab
Macro-Evolution observed in African Lake
OTHER observed speciation (marcro-evolution) events

it frustrates me that "scientists" everywhere have dismissed everything but darwinian evolution out of hand and refuse to open up the possibility that there are other scenarios

What "other" scenarios do you refer to that are backed with scientific investigation, evidence, research, or investigation? Perhaps the reason scientists are dismissing these "other" scenarios is that once you get down to it, these scenarios are nothing but warmed over creationists claims with no investigative basis behind them.

Try using paragraph breaks in your response. Your large clumped ball of words is hard to navigate. If you want a serious response to your words, please, make them a little easier to read.

What ad hominem? You are ignorant. You lack knowledge. I educated you. Now you are no longer ignorant. You are just embarrassed that you spoke before knowing. You made the assumption that I was ignorant with your "righting a wrong" statement. Would you consider that an ad hominem? But will you learn with this knowledge? Ignorance can be treated with education. But self imposed ignorance cannot be defeated, only scorned. Perhaps if you actually educated yourself on the topic rather than regurgitate pulpit talking points you'd find out how weak your argument is.

What research from creationists sources are you referring to? Please, stop the whining and produce something worthwhile to d...

What ad hominem? You are ignorant. You lack knowledge. I educated you. Now you are no longer ignorant. You are just embarrassed that you spoke before knowing. You made the assumption that I was ignorant with your "righting a wrong" statement. Would you consider that an ad hominem? But will you learn with this knowledge? Ignorance can be treated with education. But self imposed ignorance cannot be defeated, only scorned. Perhaps if you actually educated yourself on the topic rather than regurgitate pulpit talking points you'd find out how weak your argument is.

What research from creationists sources are you referring to? Please, stop the whining and produce something worthwhile to discuss. Something other than "just believe me!". This is why creationism fails. It makes all these claims yet cannot back up one of them.

As AtlLeberal points out - Damn pesky evidence!

On the warpath again I see.

You called me ignorant, I simply stated that I believed you to be wrong. I don't believe you are necessarily ignorant, except of simple kindness perhaps.

About the e. coli project by Lenski... most of the strands (talked about) were incredibly difficult to produce and they wouldn't even hold up in a natural setting. Also, addition of new or beneficial information is the key to upward mobility of evolution, but this never takes place. As Lenski himself states about the formation of a citrate transporter in the e. coli strands, "A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been co-opted for citrate transport under oxic conditions."...

On the warpath again I see.

You called me ignorant, I simply stated that I believed you to be wrong. I don't believe you are necessarily ignorant, except of simple kindness perhaps.

About the e. coli project by Lenski... most of the strands (talked about) were incredibly difficult to produce and they wouldn't even hold up in a natural setting. Also, addition of new or beneficial information is the key to upward mobility of evolution, but this never takes place. As Lenski himself states about the formation of a citrate transporter in the e. coli strands, "A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been co-opted for citrate transport under oxic conditions." Thus, even he thinks the probability is that there is nothing new.
The only mutations that are beneficial are rare and are a result of a loss of information, or borrowed information from pre-existing complex organisms.

Also, just because you can do something in a lab with ideal conditions doesn't add up to it happening in nature. I can build a gingerbread house given the right tools and ingredients, but no amount of shaking of a box containing those same things will produce the same result.

Here is a link to a site that has multiple research papers and projects done from a creationist/intelligent design viewpoint. You can browse through them as you like.
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

Also, here is an article on the symbiotic relationship between certain fungi and plants. Part of the article is about the implications of the research for Christians and may be of less interest, but most of the article talks about what research has discovered about the subject.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/toward-understanding-arbuscular-mycorrhizal-fungi

I assume you may not like sites like AiG or the Institute of Creation Research, but it is no different than siting a website that is biased towards in the other direction.

I am not trying to atta

First, if I was set to simply insult I would have used words like idiot, moron, and stupid which are reduced states of the mind that cannot be altered. Instead I used "ignorance" which is simply a lack of knowledge, which you insinuated with your opening statement of "righting a wrong".
As for the Institute of Creation, they have a few problems.

The IFC present the same science as that taught in secular universities while at the same time requiring students and faculty to sign a statement of faith to ICR's fundamentalist religious mission, most notably in affirming conformity in all its work to Biblical doctrine.

They have a conclusion that they work to prove rather than reaching a conc...

First, if I was set to simply insult I would have used words like idiot, moron, and stupid which are reduced states of the mind that cannot be altered. Instead I used "ignorance" which is simply a lack of knowledge, which you insinuated with your opening statement of "righting a wrong".
As for the Institute of Creation, they have a few problems.

The IFC present the same science as that taught in secular universities while at the same time requiring students and faculty to sign a statement of faith to ICR's fundamentalist religious mission, most notably in affirming conformity in all its work to Biblical doctrine.

They have a conclusion that they work to prove rather than reaching a conclusion proven though their work. It is a contradiction to the scientific method. They ignore anything that does not agree with what they want to find and seek to bend, twist, and alter their results to fit their preconceived conclusions.

Do you honestly call that research science?

But the important thing is to find out how the scientific community regards their work. If they are doing true science then hearing from peer review will tell you if it is truly worthy. Setting up their own institute and making claims without review doesn't cut it.