What specifically do you believe is 'unproven' in regards to evolution?
I'll give you a list. You tell me.
1) Genes code for features. 2) Genes are passed from parent to child. 3) Mutations can occur in genes introducing changes which were not seen in the parent but are present in the child. 4) A mutation can have either good, bad or neutral results. 5) Mutations which benefit the individual increase their chances of survival. Mutations which harm the individual decrease their chances of survival. 6) Only organisms with similar DNA can successfully reproduce with one another. If they are too different, they either fail or produce sterile offspring.
Six simple statements. Can you disprove any of them?
You wanted to talk logic, let's talk logic.
That depends on what conclusion you are trying to draw from those points.
Can you refute 1+1=2. No. But it is a false if you try to conclude that because 1+1=2 such that ToE must be a truth.
Another example, if you claim that all water is with a bad smell, you can't limit that others must use the water in the drain under your kitchen to do the observation. That's not science anyway. If you claim that all water (or water in general) is with a bad smile, you should allow others to use any water in any place to try to falsify your claim.
Similarly, if the conclusion you are trying to draw is that evolution exists to all species, you should allow others to use any species to follow your theory to try to falsify what you claim.
Now I would like to use human as species to try to falsify your claim. Can you provide a way for me to use human as a testing example to test your claim. Can you use your own theory developed to demonstrate how a human with his organs are developed in a natural environment. If you can't, then your theory can hardly be scientific due to the lack of falsifyability and predictability.
Now replace 'human' in the above with any living organism you know, you'll notice that ToE can hardly scientifically apply to 99.99% species on earth. You claim all species shall follow ToE to evolve, however you can't setup a model workable to all species for others to test or attempt to falsify, that's not science no matter how evident think it might be.
In this case, your theory may be right and may be not. It's just not a science!
The theory of evolution is based entirely on empirical observation. In this way, evolution, is an objective explanation of why life is the way that it is.
There are, however, many different theories of creation. The Christian religion has their belief which is different from the Muslim belief which is different from the North American First Nation's beliefs and so on and so on.
If creation is to be taught in the education system, whose version of creation should be taught? You certainly cannot teach ALL the thousands of different versions as truth. The very nature of teaching creation implies that there is only one version of creation.
If you teach one version of creation over a different version of creation, is this not racist? Who decides whose culture is valid and whose is invalid?
Your question here is rather confusing.
Creation is a religion. So your question is how religions should taught in school?
If by chance what you mean is that how ID should be taught. ID just doesn't assume that "God doesn't exist". It assumes that a deity may or may not exist, what should be done is to study the design itself instead of who should be the true God. "Who should be the true God" belongs to how religions should be handled.
I think that I already pointed out clearly, if you still can't get to the point but with strawman arguments, I can't help that much.
Science is the use a very specific method to confirm a specific kind of truth, that is, the kind of truth on how things repeating themselves by following rules (such as physics laws and natural rules). If you can't falsifyably and predictably reproduce any random species specified by anyone, you can't claim that there is a repeating process called "natural selection" or "evolution".
By far ToE can't predictably reproduce a human, a monkey, a dog, a cat...you name it. It simply says, ToE doesn't possess the predictability to be called a science. And since your can't predictably reproduce over 99.99% species on earth (i.e. you lack predictability on 99.99% species) while you declare that ToE shall work on 100% species on earth, that's not science.
If you can't establish a model capable of repeatedly and predictably reproduce any specified species, there's no way that we can scientifically falsify your claiming that a repeating process called evolution ever exists.
In order for the claim to be scientific you would have to be able to present an experiment through which we could FALSIFY at least one mechanism.
I'm not asking you to come up with an experiment which confirms your claims. Your claims are circular at best. Weaselly shifting definitions at worst.
No, if you want to be science, you need to provide us with an experiment that can DISPROVE the mechanism which the Jewish Wizard used for Creation.
Do you have such an experiment?
Can you even describe for us the mechanism in terms other than "Jewish Magic"?
That's why creation is a religion instead of a science.
On the other hand, scientific falsifyability refers to how you failed the prediction. That is, if you failed to predict the outcome by the use your laws/rules developed, your laws/rules are automatically falsified.
quote: First of all, we can CLEARLY demonstrate natural selection through experimentation.
That's not only retarded, but also a deceptive claim. And the fox tail is exposed as follows.
------- The story of ToE is something like this;
Science is referring to a rather specific approach of confirming a specific kind of truth. This specific kind of truth refers to how things keep repeating themselves by following physics laws or natural rules. And the only efficient way to confirm such a kind of truth is to observe how they repeat, then develop a theory on the pattern of how they repeat, then to predict will be resulted on each repeatition. If you predict the repitition results unlimited number of times without failure, the laws/rules/theories you developed are considered a confirmed scientific truth.
For example, if you claim that water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen. You'll be able to repeat the resolution unlimited number of times with each time delivering the same expected result (i.e. hydrogen and oxygen). This process is referred to as the predictability of science. If however, something unexpected are resulted instead of hydrogen and oxygen as predicted, the claimed laws/rules/theories (a chemical reaction in this case) are considered to be falsified. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science.
Unlike any other science posseses the characteristic of predictability and falsifyability, ToE is developed totally in another approach. So if all other science is confirmed using this approach while ToE uses another, it is thus doubtful that ToE can be confirmed as a science.
Not only that, ToE (evolutionists that is) here and there makes false and deceptive claims about its capability (or lack thereof) of predictability and falsifyability. Again, if false claims are allowed in a "science", it adds futher doubt about what the theory itself is.
If you declare that 100% species on earth are undergoing and are results of the repeating process of evolution/natural selection, just like the declaration that hydrogen and oxygen shall be resulted by water resolution, you have to make the process repeatable in order to observe, to develop the theory itself and to predict what should be resulted using the theory developed.
On the other hand, if you delare the water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen, you can't specify that your theory only works for the water in the kitchen of your house. You need to allow any third party to use any water any where to follow your rule to get the same result. So if you declare that humans, dogs, cats...you name it, are the result of evolution, you should be able to repeatedly reproduce them using the theory you developed. You will be able to say that "under this establishment as a simulated natural environment, natural select shall occur to have humans (or dogs or cats or...you name it) as a resulted product. If something else is produced instead, your theory is thus falsified.
ToE doesn't natively follow this approach to confirm the claimed repeating process (evoluton that is), worse still it provides false claims such as "common ancestry is its predicabililty", common ancestry is what history is, and history occurred only once and thus is not a repeatable process. This is not the predictability science demands for the support of the claim that 100% species evolves by following the repeating rule of natural selection.
Yet another deceptive claim is that ToE's falsifyability and predictability is done through the experimentation of bacteria. So this is just the same claim that "you can use only the water in my kitchen". Science demands that if you declare that 100% species are evolved by following some kind of law, you'll be able to predictably see how humans, dogs, cats, or any species specified by any third party to be produced in an natural environment (the bacteria thingy is more of a manual environment instead of a natural environment).
As a matter of fact, ToE can hardly use a scientifc approach mentioned above to observe how things repeat themselves thus develop the theory and predict the result in accordance to the theory. The approach used by ToE is similar to history study instead of scientific study, they bring up one time historical evidence to try to support and confirm a repeating process. In the perspective that it adapts a totally different approach from any other science, in a sense one may say that it is not a science at all! It is even a false science in the sense that false and deceptive claims are spreaded around. When falsehood is defended religiously, well it is thus a religion!
The forgivable part of ToE is that it adapts such an approach simply because "it is so difficult to follow the correct way to do things" as it is almost impossible to establish a simulated natural environment and to give the required time for us to observe the process. Forgivable but this won't make the "theory" any 'better'.
Sometimes you shall notice how sneaky people are when it is said that "speciation is done in lab" or "natural selction is done in lab" they never mention on what and from what? On human from a single cell?