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.
No it doesn't have to. Science isn't about efficiency, science is about knowledge and if something can't be explained with simple efficient math then that's just how it is. Ever actually looked at the math to figure out how much load a building can take? It's a bitch, before electronic computers it could take structural engineers and professional mathmeticians (human computers, no really "computer" was the job title, it's where the item got its name, from the first people to lose their job because of it) months to work it out. Nothing simple about it.
No the faith can't. Human language isn't up to the task.
Global warming would be an excellent thing to study in school, for the opposite of the same reasons. Global warming is something most laymen agree exists, and yet every scientific model has failed utterly, none of the data says any warming is happening, and the bulk of the scientific community is in the process of throwing it out. In global warming they're trying to fit the data to a model and failing miserably meanwhile the data shows the base concept is fiction, in evolution they're fitting modelss to data and keep getting more data that show the base concept is correct it's just how we try to work it that's having problems. Both are excellent ways of teaching the scientific method, one shows how the method progresses knowledge and the other shows how the method disgards bad ideas. Also if we taught global warming in schools we'd help take acceptance of it out of the laymen community.