[JeffAtlanta]

If "the evolution theory is as true as Newton's laws of gravity" - and I assume you have ignorantly mistaken Newton's laws of motion for "laws of gravity" - then, like Newton's laws of motion, it should be replicable by experiment.

You are confusing what the words 'theory' and 'law' mean in a scientific context. Theories and Laws bear equal weight in science. Laws are mathematical equations that show relationships. Theories are used to explain these relationships.

Laws are just likely to be revised as Theories are.

The Theory of Evolution will never graduate into being a law - its just not the way things work. The theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories we have in science. BTW, theory <> hypothesis.

[wideawake]

The Theory of Evolution will never graduate into being a law - its just not the way things work.

Yes, I understand all this.

A theory is an explanatory framework for observed phenomena.

The theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories we have in science.

Yet even its defenders admit that it is problematic, and so have come up with such stopgap revisions as punctuated equilibrium.

[narby]

These arguments about Evolution being just a "theory" are pretty silly. I keep making the example that they teach music "theory" in college and no one doubts the fact that music exists. No Creationist has yet answered that one.

You are correct in that the non-scientific community doesn't understand the meaning of the words "theory" and "law".