Kinda holds a mirror up to the whole profile-making process.
Entp and seeking similar, if that means anything to you. I know Meyers-Briggs is just the Zodiac for people who don't believe in the zodiac, but hey.
I am leather-bound, loquacious, and anachronistic. The only thing I like straight is my bourbon.
I'm on to you, doctor.
To the question, "Should evolution and creationism be taught side-by-side in school?"
"Evolution is an observed fact, and is the basis of our entire understanding of immunology, which is where you get a flu shot from. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, and the Theory of Common Descent, are the two best explanations for the issue. There is no "Both Sides" to this argument; if you are studying science, you study the prevailing theories, and any interesting alternate theories - like the Red Queen or Court Jester hypotheses. A theory is not a guess - we know that Gravity exists, and we explain it by the Theory of Gravitation, a set of rules and formulae that describe the body of evidence which supports the observed fact of shit falling the fuck down.
You can't reject the entire body of observed evidence, and stay in the realm of science. You need to have a theory which can stand up to cross examination - which "Intelligent Design" has not - or you need to withdraw from the sciences.
Those who support "Teaching the Controversy" don't understand two things - that there is no controversy, and that there is entirely too much controversy.
There is no controversy, in and of that Evolution by Natural Selection and Common Descent are accepted by the entire extant field of biology, and its related sciences. Whether or not species evolve is not in any kind of doubt; we have watched it happen. Our entire understanding of immunology, pathology, and biology are based on Evolutionary science. Flu shots protect against newly evolved strains of the influenza virus. Evolution is the most vigorously supported scientific theory we have.
There is also too much controversy, in and of that if we teach "every side," then we're arguing about fitness-driven versus abiotic-factor-driven causes for evolution. We're arguing about the Standard Model in physics. We're arguing about the source of the post-world-war-two economic boom in history. There is very little that there is not "another side" to, and there is already not enough time to teach the bit which is agreed upon as the best answer by the most experts in that field.
You want to talk controversy? I think that Sunday Schools should be forced to teach the controversy about the Trinity - how it wasn't until the Christians who believed in it killed or excommunicated the others (Monophysites) that it became part of the canon. I think Sunday Schools should teach the controversy about the text.
I'm sorry. I'm a historian, and a scientist, and a scholar of religion, and this question... it apparently struck a nerve.
To me, suggesting that we teach "both sides" is offensive. It is first an implication that there are two legitimate sides; it's like saying that children should learn both the history of the second world war, AND be taught the theories set out by holocaust deniers, and allowed to figure out for themselves what is true.
Evolution happens. The Holocaust happened. We know this, for sure, in both cases. The only difference between those two truths is that the deniers of one are considered monsters, and the deniers of the other have deep pockets and broad support. "