How do you define the word Evolution?

"Although creationists frequently claim that there are no transitional fossils, the paleontological record tells a very different story."Access denied | National Center for Science Education

Nobody cares what your definition is.Scientists get to define the terms they use, not preachers who are 180 anti-science.

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

​

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

​

A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.

And creationists have invented the term "evolutionists" to describe anyone who studies a field of science whose results contradict their ancient tribal beliefs.What a joke!

That's a popular creationist view, entirely unsupported by the biological and genetic sciences.I suspect that that view stems from the religious belief in "the fall," which is also entirely unsupported by the biological and genetic sciences.

Perhaps if they didn't invent the term, creationists are pretty much the only ones using it now.And by that they mean anyone in the sciences whose results they disagree with.

You left out an unhealthy dose of creationism, as that's the primary impetus for doubting the theory of evolution.Once creationist belief has been inculcated in someone, evidence no longer matters.

And creationists have no say in the matter at all, being inherently anti-science.You wouldn't hire a plumber who busted up your pipes instead of fixing them, would you?

"Useful" science = fields that don't disprove our beliefs. Not useful science = everything else.You have made my case for me. Creationists think they can pick and choose from science, accepting some things and rejecting others for religious reasons. The fields they reject they do their best to undermine. We see that on a daily basis here, and we see it throughout the country in creationist's efforts take over school boards (Dover) and to mandate their beliefs in school text books (see the recent efforts in Texas, for example). (See posts from Faith and Davidjay for additional examples.)There is no way these efforts can be seen to be supporting science--they are clearly anti-science. You have even included the "good science vs. bad science" nonsense in your post, referring to "anything that is useful in applied biology." You clearly mean to exclude evolution, much of geology, genetics and a few related fields that disprove your beliefs as "science which is not useful." Young earth; global flood ca. 4350 years ago. If these beliefs are acted upon they impost a worldview that is completely at odds with the real-world evidence. Given her posts and beliefs, Faith would not be a very effective geologist, for example.

You disprove that claim with every post you make here.

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

​

A model, to be of any practical value, has to organize facts into a cohesive whole.If there are a lot of facts that contradict a model it is of little value.

"Useful in applied science" is not a valid criterion in science."verified by observation and experiment" is not a valid criterion in science.In both cases creationists have attempted to make this distinction to separate the fields of science that they are OK with while condemning the ones that disprove their religious beliefs.Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Both use the same scientific method, and attempts by creationists to draw a distinction between the two is anti-science and based entirely on religious belief.

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

​

Robert A. Heinlein

Nonsense. Some fields of science are not able to do experiments, but that does not prevent them from doing science.

Statements like this reduce your credibility to about the vanishing point.