“There isn’t enough evidence to support any of the theories at present. Science will happily and honestly admit to that.”
In light of most of the evolutionists claims on this site, that statement is without merit. “Science” rarely admits to being wrong about anything. What world do you live in where science, schools, documentaries, the government and scientists do not claim that evolution theory is 100% verifiable? I certainly have never seen that world.
The textbooks are written around it and and legislation is drafted on the premise.
If you live there, then I respect you more than you know. But judging from your use of the word “conured?” I don’t believe you do.
My statement (“There isn’t enough evidence to support any of the theories at present. Science will happily and honestly admit to that”) was about the origin of life and is, AFAIK, an accurate appraisal of the state of science on the subject. It was not about evolution.
Science admits it is wrong all the time and you know it. If it didn’t then we would still be riding horses, throwing spears and dying young.
There is an overwhelming proponderance of evidence to support evolutionary theory and it is indeed verifable.
You must be reading FR in some alternate universe. I find that most (in fact I believe all) evolutionists in these threads readily concede that there is, at least as yet, no remotely complete and satisfactory theory of the origin of life.
“Science” rarely admits to being wrong about anything.
You must also be reading science journals and science news in an alternate universe. In this one scientists are constantly searching for new and better theories and, on the accumulation of sufficient evidence, abandon superseded ones not only readily, but downright gleefully.
What world do you live in where science, schools, documentaries, the government and scientists do not claim that evolution theory is 100% verifiable?
Huh? You brought up, and Natufian was responding to, the issue of the origin of life:
And if you can conjure up an elaborate story about the way life came about[...]
Natufian essentially agreed with you -- that there is presently no sufficient basis to accept any naturalistic origin of life theory. Instead of taking "yes" for an answer, you abruptly switch the subject, and pretend Natufian was responding to a different issue.
The textbooks are written around it and and legislation is drafted on the premise.
If the premise is that science textbooks should include scientific theories that are objectively a part of science, and exclude supposed theories that have objectively failed to demonstrate scientific merit, or have been falsified, or whose proponents have actively shielded them from serious scientific testing and review in the first place, then, yeah. Of course.
If you actually believe that creationism is true, and evolution false, then you shouldn't want it any different. Because then, on what you should expect to be the inevitable triumph of creation theory, evolution could be, would be (and, that circumstance genuinely applying, should be) DROPPED AND EXCLUDED from textbooks and curricula.
If creationism is instead included, prior to achieving priority or parity on merit in the marketplace of scientific ideas, and therefore on the basis of a kind of intellectual affirmative action, then, even if evolution were disproven, we'd have to keep including it in textbooks on the same affirmative action basis.
Interestingly, creationists almost universally -- but only wrt evolution -- do reject the consequential competition of ideas option, which holds that ideas can and do fail, and that failed ideas should be excluded from heuristic presentations, or at least not be dishonestly presented as viable competitors to successful ideas. Instead -- but only wrt evolution -- they support the equal time, affirmative action, victimology/self esteem/identity group approach, which holds that if a significant identity group (e.g. fundamentalists) holds a strong opinion about an academic topic (e.g. evolution) then it is an attack on them and an assault on their self-esteem to teach a contrary view, and so you should instead teach "both sides," pretending they are alternatives, even if only one of those "sides" has objective academic standing.
This is fascinating because creationists, generally being conservative, tend to hold EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE view wrt to every other subject. When it comes to history, social studies, political science, sex education, or even science curricular with respect to topics like abortion and environmentalism, creationists support consequential competition of ideas, and reject the wishy-washy relativism of equal time and balanced treatment.
This struck me as notable years ago, when I used to sometimes watch or read about conservative Texas textbook activists Mel and Norma Gabler's testimony. I would cheer them on when they complained about Marilyn Monroe getting more space in American History texts than George Washington, but then watch them turn around and demand equal time for "creation science" on exactly the same philosophical grounds that feminists had demanded more time for Marilyn.
This oddity has convinced me that, on some psychological level, creationists don't really believe in creation, or disbelieve in evolution, as much as they think they do. If it were otherwise they would behave very differently from the way they do. They would not be eagerly attempting to establish the precedent that it is only "fair" to include "both" creation and evolution. First this represents an intellectual relativism which they do not accept as a general principle; and second they would hold out for defeating evolution on scientific merit, so that it would justifiably be excluded.
It's clear to me -- even if they don't admit it to themselves -- that most creationists know deep down that evolution is in fact a strong theory, and creationism a weak one.