No, observing a direct fact in the lab or in the wild is much, much closer than postulating a mere theory.
Because they confuse "theory" with "hypothesis." "Theory" in science is as close to fact as one could possibly get. The scientifically illiterate (read the vast majority of Americans) however, think "theory" means "guess."
What's a Scientific Theory? Encyclopedia article.
Our dictionaries support this. After several "correct" definitions, #5 says "guess". This is not the fault of the dictionary, since it has to reflect popular usage of words but does give ammunition for the creationists.
No, observing a direct fact in the lab or in the wild is much, much closer than postulating a mere theory.
The scientific community appears terrified that any other view might be presented, and worse, accepted by most of society.
From another post: "I'm just amazed that people seem driven to reject Evolution, when I see no real conflict between it and Genesis. It's all in the interpretation."
I could not agree more. Except that what also amazes me is that those posting here as 'true scientists' are driven to fear at the thought of dissent. That they are so heavily barricaded behind their beliefs that the only response left is hostility to ANY other belief structure.
The gratuitous use of 'Taliban' in this thread does seem better applied to the 'scientific' side and not to those who want to see the other theory addressed along side theirs - if you can accept them both in a religion class, that's OK with me.
Disclaimer:
I have no idea who the Discovery Institute might be and do not need their help in forming my own opinions.
I have no interest in declaring that the local university has an evil goal of disestablishing religion in America, although many of its residents and employees seem to be of that bent. And,
My own opinions don't fit either extreme in this debate.
PS: Last time I was in a church was to bury someone, there's a lot of that after you hit 55.