"All of those who object to the teaching of creationism as a viable alternative to evolution are NOT being scientific or objective"
Yes they are
"The fact of the matter is that nobody alive today was present when the earth and the species on it came into existence by whatever means - so all of our opinions are based upon examination of evidence. The evidence can be (and has been) formatted and presented to support both cases."
Actually all of the evidence supports evolution, many creationists have been nown to lie about valid science and claim it as evidence but that s not the same as providing evidence to support creationism
"If we can engineer plant and animal DNA now, then how can we assume that a higher intelligence couldn't have done a better job millions of years ago? To reject this possibility is to assume that we're currently the most advanced organisms in existence for the entire history of time"
No one hasrejected the possibility that life was seeded from another planet it's just that there is no evidence to suggest that it was and it fails as an explanation for life because it fails to explain the existence of the designer, which means it is pretty much ruled out by Occams razor.
"I guess the same people that would exclude creationism as an explanation to our existence would also teach that given enough time, all of the metal, glass, rubber, paint, etc. in an automobile would spontaneously be drawn up from the earth and create a functional machine."
This is a straw man and such machines do not reproduce living organisms do, it's a pretty simple concept.
"We are biological machines, we've been designed, so therefore - there's a engineer/designer"
Now you're simply begging the question you have not established that we have been designed therefore the premises on which your conclusion is drawn are false.
"Just as it's never been proven that macro evolution (as opposed to micro variations in species) has ever produced a living thing."
Actually you are correct that macro evolution has never produced a living thing that would be reproduction. However macro evolution which is evolution at the level of the species has been observed and documented.
"Think again - a living animal spontaneously arising out of the dirt. That's not very scientific."
It's straw man time again.
"I think the bigger issue is that those who oppose teaching creation simply don't want to acknowledge that there's an authority/creator other or higher than themselves."
And here we see another fundy telling other people what they believe, I can assure you that I don't oppose creationism for those reasons, I oppose it because it's not science. There are also a great many scientists who do consider themselves accountable to your god but who still oppose creationism such as Ken Miller. Claiming to know what someone else believes is incredibly arrogant.
"That's a presumptuous, arrogant, ignorant, and absurd position for any true scientist to logically hold."
Well then it's a good job that no scientists I am aware of hold such a position, you howeverhave been incredibly presumptuous, arrogant ignorant and absurd in the claims you have made in this post. May I suggest that this claim may well be projection.
