Evolution: First, we must remember that Evolution is not a theory regarding origins. It refers to changes to a species throughout history. It is beyond the scope of science to speculate any model of origins without jeopardizing the integrity of science. Commonly thought to have originated with Charles Darwin, who had essentially plagerized from Erasamus Darwin, his own grandfather whose Zoonomia, anticipated the work not only of his grandson, but also of one of Charles' contemporaries whom he also 'adopted' from, Alfred Russel Wallace. In Erasamus' work, evolution is considered as 1) growth metamorphasis; 2) artificial cross-breeding such as in animal husbandry; and 3) mere climate adaptations. In other words, what is known as Micro-evolution. It is unfortunate 'micro-evolution must be distinquished from 'macro-evolution', the fable of intra-special transitions. This latter is a speculative theory of intra-species transitions such as from fish to reptile, dog to giraffe, or box to apple or Rubik's cube to mp3 player. I say it is a speculative theory because this intra-species evolution has never been witnessed, but is based primarily upon extrapolation and estimates. In other words, as far as scientific observation is concerned, macro-evolution is a speculative theory based upon an argument from silence. Transitional fossils are the problematic glue which holds this theory together. The latter form of evolution (micro-) is accepted by evolutionists and creationists/Intelligent Design proponents alike. Very, very few creationists reject this idea- in fact, I've never heard of any who do. This is the concept of inter-species adaptations (environmental adaptations, defense mechanisms, etc. such as dogs and horses developing a winter 'coat' or the tanning of human skin as a response toward more exposure to the sun than it is previously accustomed).
The Big Bang: This is the naturalistic model of origins. The only alternative of origins to one which begins with God is one that begins without God. Allegedly, all energy/matter that exists, came into being as a large pre-historic mass exploded all of a sudden and thrust elements throughout the universe. It was by these random passes, violent collisions and brief linkages of various elements, that amino acids and other molecular components began to fuse to other elements and create combinations to form protein chains.
Creationism: From the times of antiquity, fertility-based theories abounded which proposed to explain natural activity which was previously unknown. This was largely theorized by Auguste Comte. Such activities as harvest, flooding of the Nile, etc. were explained as the results of sexual intercourse between gods and goddesses. This was the notion which eventually led to the practice of temple prostitution. This practice was intended to get the deities horny so as to boast the agriculture. However, since the Enlightenment era, theism has gradually been eroded and replaced with the favored answer of naturalism. The theory of Creationism has historically been gleaned from either a literal or grammatical-historical interpretation of Genesis. However, it has most often been made synonymous with Christian Fundamentalism by its critics. While the Creationists of the Scopes trial did not utilize the best creationist resources (due to the growing distrust toward scholarship and the anti-intellectualism of the Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy of 1890-1945), the bulk of the case of the macro-evolutionist defendants revolved around various logical fallacies such as Ad Hominem arguments, appeal to hatred, Guilt by Association (G.B.A.), etc.
Intelligent Design (I.D.): Understandably, anti-theistic proponents (macro-evolutionists) rests the bulk of their case against I.D. upon the same scare tactics used in regards to creationism. One way in which Intelligent Design proponents is distinguished from Creationism in that not all I.D. proponents are card carrying evangelical Christians. Intelligent Design simply states that the presupposition of undirected, unmotivated, and finite origins out of nothing are problematic. Some persons are simply thrust into this category because they've dared to question the almighty doctrine of macro-evolution. Also in contrast to Creationism, while I.D. can lead one to postulate the identity of the designer as a God, it does not dwell on, nor identify this designer as Creationism grounds it's identity as the God of the Bible. However, I.D. is considered by its critics to be synonymous with Creationism in that it is not biased against theim. Critics state through ad hominem and strawmen 'arguments' that any and all who are friendly, or at least open to theism, will be guilty of returning science back to the stone age. This is a favorite G.B.A. (Guilt By Association) argument of I.D. critics.
Chanted often, the evolutionist bullies hope that their wishful thinking may convince others to adopt it wholesale, without question. Anyone familiar with the Scopes case knows that though the creationists originally won, this was later overturned on a technicality. I say 'bullies' because after the evolutionists won the possibility to be included in the classroom as an alternative, it acquired its sole position in the classroom over the next 80 years. It was determined not to share the throne with another. Various laws on the federal and state level sought to prevent any breakage of this monopoly. By censorship, many scientists who taught evolution, but also dared to question certain problems, were silenced by intimidation, had their careers ruined, or were bullied until they became burned out or joined the ranks of their persecutors. Regardless of how this issue is treated in the courtroom or the public, our children's education is too precious for such antics of those who try to force their pet theories exclusively upon our children at the expence of learning and practicing the scientific process when it may yield an undesired answer. The scientific method begins with a idea. That idea is researched, scrutinized and if still feasable becomes a hypothesis. After this testing, a conclusion is drawn
or if problematic, it is altered in such a way that it may then work. If it cannot be salvaged, it is discarded. It is then shared with colleagues for peer confirmation. If their findings result in confirmation, the findings are then submitted to the public. In education, one can teach two ways. If a student answer "2+2= 19" the teacher can 1) say, "No." or 2) One can set two pens and two erasers before the student and ask him/her to determine how many items are there. By counting 1+1+1+1=4, the student has not only learned the correct answer, but also 2) the process of how to arrive at the answer (methodology), as well as 3) having demonstrated satisfactorally this process (skill). By teaching the process as well as the 'answer', a student can decide whether he/she wants to accept it.