So I guess the place to start is to discuss how evolutionists might explain the difference between presenting evidence and showing how that evidence supports theory.
Part of the problem is that the non-scientists have a poor understanding of what we mean by "scientific theory." And part of the problem is that we don't explain it very well.
I often see "scientific theory" defined as a well supported explanation. However, to the average person, "explanation" simply means an intellectually satisfying story (something that satisfies your curiosity). And creationists supply explanations under that definition. The point about science, is that scientists are
never satisfied so "explanation" is the wrong way to define "theory."
The most important aspect of a scientific theory, is that it provides the basis for methodology that is useful for prediction and control. When Dobzhansky said "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (see
Wikipedia) he wasn't talking about intellectual satisfaction. It's the role of the theory in providing the basis for methodology that makes it so important.
The main evidence for a theory is the effectiveness of the methodology based on that theory. If oil companies were finding oil more effectively using flood geology, then what is currently being taught in geology classes would be seriously questioned.
Facts by themselves do not prove a theory. Given any collection of facts, we can come up with an ad hoc hypothesis to account for those facts. It is the effectiveness of the methodology that is the important evidence. But this makes it hard to present evidence. It is far easier to cite facts than to go into the details of the methodology and its effectiveness.
™ Version 4.2
