Replies

Honest evolutionists will admit that evolution is not a science. It is nothing more than a theory...

Creationists often slam evolution as being "only a theory." But in science, isn't a theory an assumption that is backed by considerable evidence, such as the theory of relativity or the atomic theory?

> an assumption that is backed by considerable evidence

With evidence, interpretation is everything.

See http://www.wiebefamily.org/e.pdf

"Creationists often slam evolution as being "only a theory." But in science, isn't a theory an assumption that is backed by considerable evidence"

Well, if I read the article right, it is stating there is no evidence for the "theory" in this case.

This is what the Navarre Bible Commentary on the Pentateuch says (Genesis 2:5-6 ...pg 46):

"Giving due weight to the data of faith and to scientific discoveries about the evolution of species, Catholic theology is not opposed to the idea that God could have infused a soul into an already-existing being, having previously prepared a body to suit it, thereby making it a 'man'. This way of explaining things is called 'moderate evolutionism'.
"In this connection, John Paul II, in his 22 October 1996 message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, after recalling the teachings of Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani generis, pointed out that recent advances in scholarship 'lead one no longer to regard the theory of evolution as a mere hypothesis'.
"But at the same time he said that there is not just one 'theory of evolution' but a number of such theories, and he indicated which ones are contrary to faith: 'The theories of evolution which, in line with the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit as something that emerges from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man'".

But in science, isn't a theory an assumption that is backed by considerable evidence, such as the theory of relativity or the atomic theory?

That's the point at which I realized this article wasn't going to have anything useful to offer. Anyone who can say that a theory is by definition "not a science" doesn't know what he's talking about. And that's a fact, not a theory.

Creationists often slam evolution as being "only a theory." But in science, isn't a theory an assumption that is backed by considerable evidence, such as the theory of relativity or the atomic theory?

There is not one single cell of evidence for that mythical hot steaming pot of primordial soup. There is not even a shred of evidence it can be tested or recreated. Now the modern evolutionists claim through their screams that pot is not part of evolution. The pot has been relegated to a secret vault labeled abiogenesis... Well, without proof that hot steaming pot ever existed, the fairy tale/tail of evolution is a man made creation without evidence. Discoveries of similar functions and likeness in species does not equate to descent.

I agree. The problem is not that evolutionary theory is a THEORY, it is that Evolutionists think that random mutation over time explains all evolutionary change. It is a theory that was developed before the discovery of DNA, and all the intricacies of molecular biology.There is an interesting dispute that’s been going on in evolutionary biology for the past several years because random mutation/natural selection over and over again does not adequately explain many things. The hard core evo devos create more and more complicated theories that are highly improbable or flat impossible. Most evolutionary biologists know this, even those who are unwilling to entertain ID.