The thing is, you can not physically and literally observe millions of years of evolution. That's an impossibility. You can not repeat the circumstances that things happened under if you don't know them. My problem with evolutionary science is not that they put forward hypothoses and ideas, but tha fact that a great deal of these ideas are presented as indisputable fact in schools and in the general public.
Take the famous fossil Lucy, for example. For many years, they contributed one of her kind to making ancient human-like footprints found near her site. So all the models and illustrations of Lucy show a human-like, upright walking creature with basically human feet. Sometime in the last few years, they found another fossil belonging to the same kind, and they called it Selam. This one was more complete, and it showed that Lucy had feet more like one of the great apes (like a gorilla), and that it couldn't have possibly walked upright and made the footprints it was associated with. In other words, it looks less and less like a human ancestor to the scientific community, and more and more like a species or subspecies of a separate extinct ape.
But where have you heard any of this is the media? What are they teaching in schools? What's championed in museums across the world? This great "proof" of human evolution just completely fell apart, and no one besides niche news sources have said anything about it at all. Kids are going to be taught outright lies that contradict GOOD EMPIRICAL SCIENCE. It's mind-boggling! And people are still going to go into fanatical rants about any number of things like this when they've been outdated.
It's frustrating not because it's thought out, but because people will blindly accept anything as long as they think it's "scientific." The vast majority of people don't realize how much presupposition goes into the conclusions that scientists make. They're not neutral, they're human. You need ideas about the past before you can say anything about it, and scientists all cram their ideas into the other ideas that scientists put forward before them, even if they don't quite fit. Because if you don't accept common ideas, they won't take you seriously. By the way, it wasn't always like this. The founder of NASA was a creationist, haha.
In my eyes, if you go against the complete indoctrination of "Science says Evolution!" then you're putting a lot more thought into it than most people. Because if you believe in something else, you have to know WHY you believe it, instead of relying on every news article about scientists that say this or that, or teh constantly outdated biology books. I'm not saying schools should teach creation, I'm saying that they shouldn't indoctrinate kids with outdated ideas and false evidence, and teach them critical thinking. There are obviously a lot of people that believe evolution by their own thinking, and that's fine. But what's happening is just flocking like mindless sheep, just as they accuse religious people of doing.
Getting back on topic, I think Huckabee is either going to win or come close to winning. He represents a shift in the Republican way of thinking as well as a change in the evangelical community, and it's a good shift in both cases. I can't see Giuliani winning at all, that would be ridiculous. If it isn't Huckabee, I would place my bets on McCain. I can't see anyone really liking Romney that much. Thompson is only starting to show now, but I can't see that picking up either. Ron Paul won't win. Even if more people agreed with his ideas, he's insane. lol
That is about as ironic as Faux news is in saying that they are "fair and balanced" 
