[Socrates1]

The Evolutionists hide behind the Big Bang theory, but can't explain what caused the Big Bang, or what preceded it.

Cosmologists explain the force that created the Big Bang as "a God-like force".

With the developments & discoveries in quantum mechanics and chaos theory (and other "complex systems") in the last 25 years, science isn't quite so smug and confident anymore.

The current thinking is that there was likely was some "guiding force", and are at a lost to explain what is was.

Maybe the "polls" are assuming some overly simplified, incomplete "choices", where the real answer is "None of the above."

Darwin might be surprised to find such debate still raging nearly a century and a half after he published his book. He might also be surprised to find that even today there is significantly less than majority agreement from the American public that his theory of evolution is supported by the evidence.

That's why is is still a "theory". Newton's Law isn't controversial. It is just "wrong" at the subatomic level. Journalist's love to (incorrectly)use the two interchangeably. Empirical evidence doesn't prove a scientific theory

It might be interesting (and about maybe more useful) to see what the public thinks about Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I don't think Einstein would be surprised that there is still "controversy".

[js1138]

It certainly is a tragic flaw in science that it can't explain everything. And medicine is useless because it can't cure everything, and police are useless because they can't prevent every crime.

Amazingly enough, science has never proved anything.

It must be useless.

[clyde asbury]

Here we go again...

That's why [Darwinism] is still a "theory".

Darwinism is a theory of how evolution happened. Evolution itself is not a theory. Maybe it happens through another mechanism besides natural selection, but there is no question that it happens.

It as well established as belief in a spherical Earth before there were artificial satellites.

[Dimensio]

The Evolutionists hide behind the Big Bang theory, but can't explain what caused the Big Bang, or what preceded it.

The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing whatsoever about the Big Bang.

[Dimensio]

That's why is is still a "theory". Newton's Law isn't controversial.

It is a "theory" because it is an attempt to explain a mechanism within the universe. A "Law" describes a generalization about events.

Laws explain what happens. Theories attempt to explain why they happen. Theories never become "laws". One is not a graduation of the other.

[gdani]

The Evolutionists hide behind the Big Bang theory, but can't explain what caused the Big Bang, or what preceded it.

Maybe because that falls outside the realm of evolution.

The current thinking is that there was likely was some "guiding force"

Where did you get that from? Cite please.

[stremba]

1. Big bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. It is dishonest to try to conflate the two. Even if the "god-like force" that started the big bang is God, there is nothing to imply that evolution is false.

2. The term theory has a distinctly different meaning in science than it does in everyday usage. In science, a theory is a set of coherent statements that explain a wide range of observations. It is absolutely not true that a theory is somehow on shakier ground than is a law. Laws in science are descriptive statements. Theories are explanatory ones. It is not true that theories at some point are "proven" and turn into laws.