That was exactly Einstein's famous sentiment: "I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."
Facts are details. Theories are thoughts.
My appologies for putting quotes around my statement. It was not inteded to quote the writer of the article or Ken Miller. Here is what set me off:
"In science, theory is a higher level of understanding than facts" which is from the words of the article writer and not the scientist. Now, can you explain to me how a theory can be a higher understanding "than" facts. From what I understand of science a theory is a higher understanding "of" facts and evidence not "than" them. Of course I must also appologize for my misunderstanding of the term facts. I would like to say that what Ken Miller states about theory is correct. Theories are tools to explain facts and evidence. Once a theory has emmassed enough facts and evidence that in themselves are tuatologous, it then becomes a tautology. Like the theory of our solar system is now a tautology. We all know that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around as was previously believed.