You are again simply wrong in asserting the sufficiency of evidence for macro evolution as "science fact". I have little interest in lengthy arguments with you on the topic. You ardently believe it, and ardently believe in the people who have promoted it, but that sort of faith doesn't make it true. However, that is just the problem Ben was referring to. A teacher in a college class that is supposed to focus on persuasive speech making the topic of intelligent design taboo, because the teacher's mind, like your own (my impression on this subject) and like Richard Dawkins is already made up and persuasive argument is irrelevant, indeed it is deemed impossible. Nor do you seem to appreciate that Ben's post indicated his choice of topic was dismissed with a diatribe against his beliefs, indeed his capacity to discern or think, which he is not allowed to respond to directly if he wants to succeed in the class. Facts are not to be considered, the case has been closed -- or at least minds have been. And when the closed minds are in positions of authority, that is indeed frustrating.

You say "I will begin to question evolution when..." but I doubt the intellectual honesty of that assertion. What could possibly make you have such a question? What sort of evidence would that be, and how would it have to be presented? Indeed, you have a foregone conclusion that any evidence that contradicts the common academic view of evolution is impossible, and consequently don't consider the evidence that is already widely available. Never mind AIG, they do start from a presumption of Biblical truth -- which is a legitimate starting place, whether you agree or not -- at least honestly consider the issues raised by authors like Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, Paul Davies, Phillip Johnson and others, who do not exactly write as "creationists".

Go back and read Ben's post again. His frustration wasn't with people who consider and disagree, it was with people who have closed the door to questions and refused discussion.