Dangerous, dangerous stuff, I realize, but what is exactly wrong with this statement.
Scientifically, I am aware that there is more than ample evidence to prove evolution is a fact in the developments within a species, but I've seen no solid evidence to indicate it is anything more than a theory insofar as the occurrence of developments between species.
Would selective breedings of a gorilla, for example, produce a more intelligent and easier to feed animal like an orangutan?
Many years of selective breeding by man by design have suceeded in turning some wild animals into domesticated versions, but they have not suceeded in changing a species. Therefore, the portion of the theory of evolution that postulates nature will eventually make changes between species through time and chance remains a theory and not a fact.
Scientifically, I am aware that there is more than ample evidence to prove evolution is a fact in the developments within a species, but I've seen no solid evidence to indicate it is anything more than a theory insofar as the occurrence of developments between species
Because that statement in the sticker is so off base, not just about evolution, but in terms of basic science. It's really, really messed up. First, there is no understanding what is meant by theory and what is meant by fact, and the heirarchial relationship between the two in the realm of science.
And to consider scientific subject critically, one must be well versed in the field. There are controversies in Evolution, just like ALL scientific theories, but those are at the forefront of research in those areas and are wauy above the heads of high school students and most high school teachers. And what creationists consider 'controversies' are largely gross misrepresentations of science or are outright lies. And there have been examples of new species evolving and were in PH's list o links and posted several times on other threads.