[Non-Sequitur]

After all, it is called the theory of evolution in acknowledgment that it is a hypothesis rather than a confirmed scientific fact.

The process that explains how a 250,000 pound airliner can go hurtling through the air thousands of feet above the ground at hundreds of miles per hour is know as the Theory of Flight. I guess that isn't confirmed science, either.

[Non-Sequitur]

(*sigh*) Your work is never done.

[DouglasKC]

The process that explains how a 250,000 pound airliner can go hurtling through the air thousands of feet above the ground at hundreds of miles per hour is know as the Theory of Flight. I guess that isn't confirmed science, either.

The difference is that we can see the proof of flight science every day. Airplanes flying. But evolutionists can't ever show us proof of one animal turning into another. Only speculation.

[knarf]

If it's explained, varifiably, duplicated untold millions of times without variation to the basic concept (aerodynamics) .. it's not a theory.

[burroak]

"...that isn't confirmed..."

Your nom de plume is apropos.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>The process that explains how a 250,000 pound airliner can go hurtling through the air thousands of feet above the ground at hundreds of miles per hour is know as the Theory of Flight. I guess that isn't confirmed science, either.<<<

I agree. We should quit labeling Evolution the "Theory of Evolution" since it is both unobservable and unprovable. How about the "Myth of Evolution"?

[Just mythoughts]

The TOE is a fairy tale.... a fenced off estate in flesh man's mind. A "process" of thought without the required evidence of heaps and heaps of transitioning bones.

[Captain Rhino]

No, in the case of flight, it is a PROVEN theory whose fundamental rules/mechanisms are well understood and encapsulated in the various principles of aerodynamic engineering.

To parallel the point being made in this article, you would have to postulate a evolutionary theory of flight arguing that the airliner was in a direct line of descent from organic birds and that we should be able to find transitional forms (half bird-half airplane specimens) in the fossil record. Of course, until those transitional half bird-half airplane forms are discovered, the theory would have to be considered not yet proven. (It cannot be conclusively disproven until the impossibility of biological forms developing metal structures and jet engines is demonstrated through research.)

IMO, the author does a good job (down to the last three paragraphs) in pulling together enough credible information to argue that the theory of Darwinian-style gradual evolution has flaws and seems to founder on the existing but as yet unfulfilled requirement for copious examples of transitional forms in the fossil record. The author presents evidence that this serious shortcoming in proving the theory of evolution is acknowledged by at least some of the researchers in the field of study. And the author points out that some scientists feel another mechanism other than gradual evolution must be at work to explain periods in the past when massive proliferation of diverse life forms seemed to happen in very short geological time periods.

Had the article ended here, the case for arguing the as yet unproven nature of the Theory of (Darwinian) Evolution is made. .

However, as is usually the case in these efforts, the author feels compelled to conclude with a reference to the creation story in Genesis. The author is essentially arguing that, since evolution's case is not yet conclusively proven, my alternative (the Genesis Chapter 1 account) must be true. Aside from presenting the claim without any supporting evidence, this argument immediately fails because it does not meet the same standard set for Darwinian evolution: the presence of transitional forms. In this case, the presence of any transitional forms (and there are some - just not a lot of them) undercuts the Genesis Chapter 1 account as a literally true account of the process in its totality. Failing to acknowledge this brings the author's credibility and objectivity into question.

Once that occurs, the sneaking suspicion arises that the whole article is just another assault on the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools. That, in turn, invokes the religion(s) in public schools controversy and we are again off to the races...

This is a shame because, as I wrote above, the author does make the case that, despite nearly two centuries of concentrated effort, the theory of evolution (unlike the theory of flight we started with) remains just that, a theory that has yet to be conclusively proven by either the fossil record or by field observation. Getting the broader scientific community to acknowledge that would be accomplishment enough.