Your question is a bit confusing. Are you saying that Evolution is science because it cant be proven? Or because there theories constantly change?. I believe a theory that the evidence continues to support the claims and is consistant with the framework your basing the evidence on is more appropriately good science.
Have a quick read of this story by Ken Ham from his book "Genesis and the decay of the nations". "When we do start from the Bible we are accused of having blind faith, unscientific faith. I recall having a radio debate with a Humanist about this matter. He declared that Christian scientists who use the Bible as their foundation are not real scientist. Real science starts with doubts, which lead to theories that change constantly as new evidence is discovered. Because what the Bible says cannot be changed , he claimed it was therefore "unscientific".
He then admitted that because he could never know if he had all the evidence, he could never be absolutely certain he had truth. All he knew was that his theories would continue to change & that the Bible was not right. He told me "You start with answers, whereas real science starts with doubts. You cant teach people answers because we never have all the evidence". You can only teach theories that are subject to change!". I then asked him why he could say the Bible was wrong when he had already admitted that he didnt have all the evidence, and therefore could never be certain about anything. In other words how could he be certain the Bible was wrong when there could be a great deal of evidence he hadnt discovered, which would show it was right? What would he do then? He couldnt reply. The point is that he too began with a preconceived idea, his foundation was the theory of Evolution and he was not prepared to change it". (End of book exert)
The rules of this game is simply no supernatural is allowed. Therefore any suggestion of Creation is out of the question. It is on the Evolutionists part that they have tried to exclude Creation as real science when in fact it is. It really is not science vs religion it is the biased secular humanist view vs a biased christian view. Evolutionists are against Creationist because they refuse to play by there rules. Which is exclude all supernatural. The notion by the scientific community of excluding Creation has come from the rules of the game rather than the evidence. Ill leave you now with some quotes from the men many of you respect and admire for there athiestic evolutionary beliefs .
"In fact,evolution became in a sense a scientific religion, almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" there observations to fit in with it" - H.S Lipson, FRS (Professor of physics. University of Manchester, UK
"You will be greatly disapointed (by the forthcoming book), it will be greviously to hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts, though i myself think my way approximately on the origin of the species. But alas how frequent, how almost universal is it in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas" - Charles Darwin, 1858,in a letter to a coleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species
(As quoted in "John Loftons Journal" The Washington Times, 8 February 1984)
It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test - Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History Personal letter to Luther D.Sunderland, as quoted in "Darwins enigma" by Luther D.Sunderland
For i am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced , often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which i have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by full stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question, and this is here impossible - Charles Darwin,1859, Introduction to Origin of Species p.2
Facts do not "speak for themselves" , they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opion, Science is a quintesentially human activity, not a mechanized robot like accumulation of object information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation - Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University) "The validation of continental drift" in his book Ever Since Darwin,1978
With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarassing position of having to postulate theories of living organism which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the uneviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely the assumption then what after long effort could not be proved to take place today had, in truth taken place in the primeval past - Loren Eisely Ph.d
I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretation. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data - Dr David Pillbeam (Physical Anthropologist, Yale University)
Darwins book On the Origins of Species, I find quite unsatisfactory: it says nothing about the origin of species, it is written very tentatively, with a special chapter on "Difficulties of theory", and it includes a great deal discussion on why evidence for natural selection does not exist in the fossil record, As a scientist, I am not happy with these ideas. But i find it distasteful for scientist to reject a theory because it does not fit with their preconceived ideas - H.Lipson,FRS(Professor of Physics,University of Manchester,UK 1981)
Evolutionisn is a fairy tale for grown ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless - Prof John Durant (Former President of the Biological Society of Strausbourg & Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum)
Scientist who go about teaching evolution as a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact - Dr T.N Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commision,USA)
I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution especially the extant to which its been aplied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the credulity that it has - Malcolm Muggeridge, Pascal Lectures,University of Waterloo, Canada
If living matter is not, then caused by the interplay of atoms,natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? There is another theory , now quite out of favour, which is based upon the ideas of Lammarck: that if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny. I think however that we must go further that this and admit that the only acceptable explantation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidental evidence supports it - H.S Lipson ,FRS (Professor of physics,University of Manchester,UK)
In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing (ex nihilo) as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous,enchanting, or both. The novelty of a scientific theory of creation ex nihilo is readily apparent, for science has long taught us that one cannot make something from nothing - Edward P.Tryon (Professon of Physics, City University of New York ,USA
The more statistically improbably a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent designer - Dr Richard Dawkins (Department of Zoology, Oxford University, UK) "The necessity of Darwinism" 1982
And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe - Dr Isaac Asimov (Biochemist Boston University,1970) "In the game of energy and thermodynamics you cant even break even"
I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far to complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable that happened billions of years ago. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts - Ernest Chain (Biochemist), 1985
Why then is there not geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps, is the most and serious objective which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies as i believe in the extreme imperfection of the geological record - Charles Darwin "On the imperfection of the geological record", Origin of Species) 1971
The evolutionary trees that adorn our text books have data only at the tips and the nodes of their branches, the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils - Stephen Jay Ghould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, "Evolutions erratic pace")1977
Were not evolving slowly slowly. For all practical purposes were not evolving. Theres no reason to think were going to get bigger brains,smaller toes or whatever- we are what we are - Stephen Jay Ghould, 1984
Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one whose morphology marks it as mans hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability is considered the answer appears to be no - Robert B. Eckhardt,PhD (Human genetics and anthropology,Pennsylvania State University ,USA)
Not being a paleontologist, I dont want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking little fragents of bone and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, theres a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments - Dr Grek Kirby (Flinders University,Adelaide, 1976)
To suppose that an eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of sperical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, i freely confess, absurd in the highest degree - Charles Darwin in Origin of Species p167
Prebiotic soup is easy to optain. We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic constitutes of nucleotides evolved into a self replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary process are extremely tentative - Dr Leslie Orgel (Salk Institute,California) "Darwinism at the beggining of life" p150
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" - Sir Fred Hoyle (Astronomer,Cambridge University,"Hoyle on evolution" p105 1981
The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experiental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any progress - Dr Lesle Orgel (Salk Institute University, 1982)
I know the question in the minds of many of you who have followed me to this point: Does science prove that there is no Creator?" Emphatically, science does not prove that - Paul A.Moody PhD.(University of Vyrmont, 1962)
The problem with Evolution is that your not basing it on the only Person/Thing who was there when it happened. I wrote this Bible passage before and if you didnt read it you can read it here cause looking at it from a Biblical perspective i see it as a commentary on todays would
"Because that when they knew God, They glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain
in their imaginations & their foolish heart was darknened, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleaness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is forever blessed amen" Romans 1:21-25
This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-07-2004 01:12 PM
™ Version 4.2