Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?

Of course it's a theory. What else would it be?And in science, what is of more use than a powerful theory? Such a theory explains existing data and makes predictions about future data.I really don't understand creationists who try to denigrate the theory of evolution by claiming "it's just a theory."

Basic science lesson:The theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. It is only by the convoluted logic of creationists that this is held to be the case, and repeated as often as possible. This seems to follow the twisted logic that "evolution -- anything that we disagree with."No theory in science, whether it is the theory of gravitation, germ theory, the theory of evolution or countless others -- no theory is ever proved. A theory in any scientific field is a well-substantiated explanation; it is in fact, the best explanation available. It accounts for all or nearly all facts, and is not contradicted by any facts. And it allows successful predictions to be made.The theory of evolution (incorporating common descent) is not contradicted by any known data. It explains known data and allows predictions to be made.The notion of special creation as espoused by creationists (incorporating as it does all of the bible), on the other hand, is supported by no facts, is contracted by a huge number of facts, and does not allow predictions to be successfully made. It is religion, not science.

You are entirely wrong. This explains it very clearly:

Sounds like you should leave science to the scientists; they're the ones who are qualified to determine what science is and how it should work.

I've noticed that fundamentalists are now using the term "true science" in an effort to disassociate the theory of evolution from the rest of science.Isn't this known as bearing false witness?Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Natural selection and descent with modification. Maybe a little founders effect and other similar things.At least there is evidence for this. There is no evidence for a designer -- that's a religious belief.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Sure, no problem.Check out this on-line lecture: Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design SufficesHere is the abstract: This demolishes the standard ID and creationist "arguments from mathematical impossibility" and shows clear pathways for evolution at all levels.But I doubt that you will watch it. I suspect you are already convinced that it is wrong somehow--you may not be sure exactly how because it gets into some detailed science--but it just has to be wrong because it contradicts your religious belief.And that is the argument you have been making this entire thread. You have not provided evidence for your statements, just blanket assertions that science is wrong and your religious belief is correct.Sorry, science doesn't work that way. We rely on evidence. If you want to play the game you need to ditch belief, superstition, old wives' tales, divination, table tapping and all the rest of that nonsense and bring evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Well, creationists did conduct the RATE Project in an effort to disprove radiometric dating through establishing a changing decay constant. Unfortunately for them they just succeeded in showing that science was right all along. The authors of the RATE Project refused to believe their own results (thus providing another example of creation "science" at work).Here is an excellent analysis of the RATE Project: Assessing the RATE Project

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Creation "scientists" (for that is what ID proponents or "cdesign proponentsists” truly are) have yet to produce any evidence.In your list of supporting fields you include archaeology and mathematical probabilities.I do archaeology, and I have yet to see that evidence. Perhaps you could be a bit more explicit, and provide some detailed references as to how archaeology supports intelligent design. (And don't bother with arrowheads and spearpoints and the like. Those are not analogous cases.)Second, mathematical models only work if the system that is being modeled is modeled correctly. You might consider this mathematical model, as described in the following on-line lecture: Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

This suggests that the mathematical models claiming evolution is impossible are flawed because they have mis-modeled the system.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Show us where in the laboratory the creationist model has been shown to be true from start to finish. Or even that there is any scientific evidence for it! If you can't do this, the evolutionary model (by your own logic) does not belong in a science classroom.Face it, there is a huge amount of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution, but no scientific evidence for creationism.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Let me try just once more.Facts are pretty much as you describe them. Beyond that you are totally incorrect when it comes to the scientific method.While everyone in a religious setting may be entitled to their own set of opinions, this is not the case in science. In science opinions or ideas (hypotheses) can be tested. Those failing the tests are scrapped! Once an idea is disproved it is no longer taken seriously unless additional evidence can be found. Therefore it is entirely false in science that "everyone is entitled to their own set of opinions."You write that connecting observations (facts) together "into what is called the evolutionary model are not proven facts." No, that would be called a theory. A theory explains those facts. By themselves facts have little meaning; a theory organizes those facts into a framework and gives them much more meaning and usefulness. All of science operates on facts and theories. There is no such thing as "true science" as you have been claiming. That seems to be a religiously-based attempt to pry the theory of evolution out of the body of science in an effort to get it taken out of schools. It is essentially a lie, made from whole cloth, and not based on scientific evidence.A theory is a construct that has explains pretty much all the facts, is not contradicted by significant facts, has withstood the test of time and has made successful predictions. This is considerably different from an opinion.In science there generally is only one theory at a time within a given field. Currently the theory that explains speciation is the theory of evolution. There are no competing scientific theories. There are various religious beliefs which take a different position, but they are not science because they are revelation-based rather than evidence-based and they are not subject to falsification and the rest of the scientific method.And please, when you are attempting to discuss science use the terminology of science and don't just make things up as you go along.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You have shown that you are living in your own world, totally divorced from science and the scientific method, yet you are trying to tell those of us who actually do science what it is we should be doing.I'm sorry, but your are so disconnected from the realities of science that any further discussion with you on this topic is pointless.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

These are called facts. Facts differ from theories. As I think I have posted before, facts by themselves lack meaning and usefulness. Theories provide that meaning and usefulness. If you are dealing with science, there is as of yet no evidence for the supernatural.Now, you can believe what you want, but don't try to pass your particular religious belief off as science (hey, there's a nice tagline in there somewhere!).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Ooooooh!That's gonna leave a mark!

You are wrong again. The decay of uranium, fission, the speed of light and other such observations are facts, not theories.It seems like all of the things you find "proven to a very high degree of accuracy" are facts, not theories.Theories organize those facts and explain why they behave the way they do.There is no such thing as "true science" as dreamed up by creationists. Either you follow the scientific method or you do not. The theory of evolution, the fields of biology, paleontology, genetics, geology and all the rest follow the scientific method.Creationism and intelligent design do not. They are beliefs masquerading as science in the hope of fooling someone. Unfortunately their practitioners find it necessary to distort the findings and methods of science, as they seem unable to counter them in any other way.You have served as a good example of this in this thread with your insistence on your "true science" definition, as if it had any reality outside of creationism, and your repeated lack of understanding of how science really works.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.