Physical science lends itself to experimentation, where historical science depends on an interpretation of an ever-increasing body of evidence that cannot be reproduced in the lab. Buggman! Long time no see!
You're quite correct about the distinction between experimental and historical sciences. But they're both sciences. The historical sciences (astronomy, geology, anthropology, paleontology, climatology, archaeology, cosmology, and of course, evolution) use presently available and verifiable evidence to discover a past which can't be re-created. Evolution makes predictions -- about the kinds of fossils that will be found, etc. Evolution is falsifiable -- if out-of-sequence creatures are discovered the game's over. So it's a science.
The question is, do we tell our children about this ongoing debate honestly, or do we try to lock them into one viewpoint or another by allowing only one to be taught in schools and elimiating the conflicting data? I vote for honesty.
I'm really puzzled by your reference to "the conflicting data." I'm not aware of anything at all that contradicts the theory of evolution. Could you give us something specific?
I know you asked Buggman, but I'll assume it's okay to point out the fact that he already answered you.
"I'm really puzzled by your reference to "the conflicting data." I'm not aware of anything at all that contradicts the theory of evolution. Could you give us something specific?"
He already did.
"We've discovered that the so-called "simple" cell isn't, and that it requires millions of very carefully balanced parts and interactions to function, which could not have arised by common chance. Irreducible complexity. We have a derth of transitional forms in the fossil records, when according to evolution we should have almost nothing but transitional forms--that is, we see stable species going along virtually unchanged for millions of years, not slow changes over time."
This is indeed data that conflicts with the theory of evolution.
Qwinn