"This is brainwashing when you try to erase the line between the fact and what you believe happened because the thought of a designer is "unthinkable"."
No, but I do think it's unprovable. Of course, all the idea's proponents have to do to change my mind is demonstrate the existence of their 'designer'. Indirectly will do.
"I am just asking for truth and equality."
Me too. I am asking that both theories be equally 'true' (i.e. repeatably confirmed) before one is put on the same level as the other. That there is more than one idea about something isn't enough; the Moon may be rock, or may be green cheese, but given there's a truckload more evidence for it being rock, teaching that it's cheese doesn't deserve equal time.
"Admit that macro-evolution is a unprovable and unobservable theory and I will shut up."
Why should I admit to a lie, even to keep the likes of BC quiet?
Macro-evolution (usually taken to mean evolution at levels above species) can be inferred from fossil and genetic data.
- It can provide useful explanations about reality. E.g. why whales share many characteristics with terrestrial mammals.
- It has predictive power. Given two species and the concept of common descent, it is frequently possible to determine the time since, and characteristics of, their last common ancestor, which can then be searched for.
- It has been repeatedly verified. Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Human chromosome 2.
- It has been observed. Drosophilia, Nereis, Zea.
- It can possibly be seen in the process of happening. Larus gulls, Himalayan warblers.
