There is no scientific proof for evolution, as it is just a theory. When you think about the complexity of even the smallest of molecules, germs, etc., it is incredible to see design with intent. I’m sorry, but it takes a HUGE leap of faith to think that a huge explosion in space billions of years ago brought order out of chaos. In the real world, an explosion disrupts and brings chaos...which is what one expects, out of order.
The law does not even intend to exclude the teaching of eveolution...so what are they afraid of? A little truth exposing the LIE that the ungodly want to shove down our throats?
That was so stupid a statement, I hesitated to respond. How did you learn to write without knowing how to read?
That word, “theory,” is a big part of the problem. Many of those in favor of teaching intelligent design (especially non-scientists) use the word as a synonym for “speculation” or “hypothesis,” much in the same way that Creationists do. “Evolution is just a theory,” they will say. For their part, many opponents of teaching it (especially non-scientists) use the word as a synonym for “law,” or “proven facts.” They will point to ironclad theories like atomic theory or the theory of relativity as examples and make accusations of ignorance, bias or trickery against those who see evolution as anything but a proven fact on the level of gravity or germ theory.The problem with this is that a theory is not a guess or a fact, but a system or a model. It is a way of looking at phenomena, and sometimes it is new and relatively speculative and flawed, and other times it is well-proven and factual. The word “theory” is like the word “automobile.” Both the Edsel and the Corvette are a type of system described by the word “automobile,” but one was a disaster and the other is a revered classic. What we have is one group of people saying “Automobiles are Edsels” and another saying “Automobiles are Corvettes.” Most of the scientists seem to realize that neither statement is true; most of the people arguing on the talking head shows and on the editorial pages seem to be missing it.
Astronomy gives us a number of examples of scientific Edsels. Take for example the model of the Universe put forth by the 2nd Century astronomer Ptolemy. He had the Earth at the center of the Universe, with the stars on a rotating globe that surrounded the solar system. In his theory, the planets not only rotated around the Earth, but also circled around in a smaller orbit called an epicycle. Ptolemy’s model even fit the available data: The epicycles explained the retrograde motion of the planets, a phenomenon no one had properly explained before.
Of course, we know Ptolemy was way off. But we also know that his model was a theory, and that the correct model that replaced it was also a theory.
I hope I've been helpful.
With that statement you show you know little of science.
In science, a theory is the highest level of explanation. Proof is a term largely used in mathematics, not science.
Here are some definitions which may help you understand the difference (from a long list on my FR home page):
When you think about the complexity of even the smallest of molecules, germs, etc., it is incredible to see design with intent. I’m sorry, but it takes a HUGE leap of faith to think that a huge explosion in space billions of years ago brought order out of chaos.Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source.
These are not a part of the theory of evolution. Evolution covers only change in the genome since life began. The origin of the universe and the origin of life are two different fields of study.