If we can teach one theory in our schools, we should be able to teach another."
Actually, one does not 'prove' a theory. It is understandable why some folks would be disturbed by that, including myself. In fact, it is correct that the theory is a framework that describes a series of facts or phenomenon. And yes, a theory can be altered or updated depending on new information. It would be nice to keep this straight, because in threads such as this one, points like this are highjacked to be used as a bludgeon, and inevitably lose the substance of the topic posted.
Where I have a problem is when tautologies ( simple definition: statements which are true by their own definition ) are substituted for true predictive ability of a theory.
I also have a problem when a theory is used 'out-of-scope'. Sadly, evolution is often abused this way.
The real danger is that the true work is now becoming hijacked by the political sphere, much like global warming, and is being used as a scientific mask to justify all sorts of public policy of less than beneficial intent.
I would propose to keep the true definition of theory in mind on these threads, otherwise they'll remain a flame fest.
When evolution is proposed as a significant fact based scientific theory, there will always be a flame aspect to the thread if I'm around. The theory of eveolution is bunk. It's being preached to our children as if fact. I can't support that.