I believe that because that's what all scientific theories are: an attempt to explain. I have a very real sense of what theories are, I don't necessarily believe all theories, as I've said repeatedly my best guess is that the current theory of evolution is wrong, but because I understand the history of science that doesn't scare me away from scientific theorization. I understand the cycle of "observe, guess, observe some more, guess some more, repeat" that is the heart of science.
Particle physics has simple formulas and simple concepts?! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Thanks for telling the world you don't know a damn thing about physics. Really, you should be embarassed about that paragraph, so embarassed you should hit the abuse button on yourself and BEG the mods to get rid of it. I've told you what evolution is, multiple times, stop wasting time.
The whole thing is insufficient. The Church, God, Christianity quite simply CANNOT be explained by any 4 sentences. It's not possible, human language isn't that good. Maybe someday we'll invent a new concept of language that can do it, but right now the tools we have are simply not up to the task.
Of course much of what the Hubble has seen has caused massive quantities of scrambling in the astronomical community. We had predictions based on what we could see, Hubble saw something we couldn't see before, that something made us look at our predictions and say "holy crap, what a pile". So we made new predictions. This is most visible in the subsection of astronomy that's works out the creation of the universe, Hubble hosed them up one side and down the other. Which is the process of science, we observed, we guessed, we sent Hubble up to observe some more, and we are now guessing again.
We have tried to explain things as irreducable before. Cells were once the smallest thing, and atoms, and electrons, and quarks. And we keep finding new ways to disect irreducable things and find their reductions.
Evolution isn't difficult to define and quantify, you've been presented with well over a dozen rephrasing of the exact same definition. It's hard to explain HOW it happens, but the quantification of its occurance is easy, there's a bunch of charts already posted on this thread quantifying our best guess to the evolutionary chain leading to current species on the planet. Evolution is one of the hottest sciences today, it's the one going through the most internal discussions (totally seperate from the arguments with creationist, real evolutionary scientists don't have time to argue with people that simply don't believe, their too busy with people that believe but have a different idea), with some of the most interesting new discoveries, and demonstrating the reasons for the scientific method better than any other science today. If the science that's doing more of what science is supposed to do than any other today doesn't belong in science curriculum then we might as well just get rid of science curriculum.
Have to. It's science. That's the efficiency of it, and the math. It may be counter-intuitive and lacking comparison. And the math can become meaningless nonsense more easily because of it, while still remaining syntactically correct. But it can be defined, succinctly, precisely, because it is hard science. Evolutionism is barely a soft science, and as we see here, is much more a vague, superstitious and pre-scientific religious imperative to believe, but not to ask precisely in what. Getting answers about particle physics is not so difficult. The science is defined. The formulas are specific. Getting answers about evolution is like asking a thief caught red-handed with the cash why he stole it, when he thinks he can still escape by coming up with an excuse.
I've told you what evolution is
And I said that I understand that people speak of a fact of evolution, whatever they mean by it, themselves. I said, for the moment, I didn't care. What I cared about what how you went about explaining this fact. What theory might you present to explain it? Specifically, how is it worded, saying what - specifically? That's science.
The Church, God, Christianity quite simply CANNOT be explained by any 4 sentences.
The Faith can be explained in four principal Creeds, however. You refuse to confess something so obvious, even if I don't ask you to confess the Creeds themselves (though for the sake of your soul I do wish that you would). It can be stated, and succinctly. Volumes have been written on the work that went into to these formulations. But there they are, ultimately, in very few words.
you've been presented with well over a dozen rephrasing of the exact same definition
There are some differences in what the fact entails. But since the same use this phrase - the theory of evolution - I just thought they could as easily tell me how that thing reads, as well. You know - the thing. The thing that everybody knows, you say. The thing that's been explained to me, you say. This thing that is somehow beyond words, and yet claims to be the most rock-solid of sciences and demands its place in every classrom from grade school through Ph.D.
Evolution is one of the hottest sciences today
I understand that there are those who study global warming and how to make the US pay. I understand it's a 'hot' field, with lots of funding. Your point?
scientists don't have time to argue with people that simply don't believe
They seem to make time. That blind belief is not science. And no scientist is reluctant to put the theory to the test. A scientist welcomes a challenge, after a little thought. If the theory holds, then he or she is perhaps pleased, but more importantly knows very simply - the theory held.