Replies

There are real good reasons why we use the term "Theory of Evolution" rather than "Law of Evolution".

A theory in science never becomes a law no matter how much evidence is accumulated. Thusly, gravitational theory will always remain a theory.

A theory in science is the end point.

Thus I am educated. Thanks.

I just looked up the definitions on Google -

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Note that they specifically list "Law of Gravity" - which is always the way when you call out something by name - I understand your point completely - with no controversy desired or intended.

My point is that many people commonly extend the range of the theory of evolution from what is proven to areas that are weak. It is a great theory.

A theory in science never becomes a law no matter how much evidence is accumulated. Thusly, gravitational theory will always remain a theory. A theory in science is the end point.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary/theory

excerpt:[ 4b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE]

We have identified the elements on the periodic table (with more to follow, I'm sure) and have gone further to speculate (theorize?) as to what they are made of. When you consider that the entire universe is made of just over 100 basic units it certainly seems plausible that there is some intelligence to the design of the elements. Since no one can explain the origin of the elements or their components, if someone proposes (theorizes?) that the elements may have been designed, does that not constitute a theory?