Growing up I being told that evolution is not provable by the scientific method,
Scientists cannot help what some people told you when you were young. Has it ever occurred to you that those people may have been wrong?
1) can't observe it, 2) no repeatable experiments to check anothers results.
Has been observed. Some experiments are repeatable. Others are repeatable and falsifiable
in principle, which is what the scientific method actually requires.
That's not to say there is not some interesting information out there about something.
You mean the overwhelming amount of evidence from a wide range of fields, all of which supports evolution and none of which supports creationism?
There are actual several theories of evolution,
Ok then, name them. Come on. If they exist, you should be able to name them.
...as in all evolutionist don't even agree exactly how it could have happened.
Sure, there is some debate about minor details of the process. Really, what would you expect? They're not all bound to one supposedly holy book. They are free to conduct their own inquiries and to attempt a better reading of the evidence, and even to find new evidence which wasn't available before (like the vast range of feathered dinos that have come out of China in the last decade or so).
The thing is, scientists studying evolution are prepared to admit errors and learn from their mistakes. Creationists are not.
This is because evolution can't be tested or evaluated by rhe scienitic method.
Well I hate to break it to you, but there really is an awful lot of scientific testing and evaluation going on, and has been for years.
Is your career choice in a sceince field where you use evolution type information regularly? I never use anything related to it. Nor do I know anyone who does.
Ok, but how is that relevant to what should be taught in school science classes? School science classes exist to give kids a good basic grounding in science, should they ever need it later on. Even if they don't go into a particular field, the basics of the scientific method are still handy for assessing any sort of evidence.
Your subtract illustratation was funny because subtration is just adding somethings that aren't there.
Ok, so your understanding of basic mathematics is as bad as your understanding of basic biology. Tell me, how does having little grasp of either subject qualify you to have an opinion on the content of the school science curriculum?
I would rather my children were taught (and they were) as I was useable information.
Good. In that case you would be vehemently opposed to children being taught creationism, since in no way is it usable information. OTOH, you would be in favour of evolution being taught in school science classes, since it is useful and usable information.
Oh and Archaeolgoy hasn't been undermiming the Bible for decades. there are actually some good supporting evidence
Ok then, bring it on. This should be fun.
Topic: Creationism To Be Included In School Biology Textbooks In Texas