Replies

But I would guess, like most creationists, you want to specifically belabor the fact that evolution is "only" a theory, but don't want equal, or even comparable, emphasis placed on the fact that photosynthesis (just for instance, among the hundreds of theories invoked, but rarely actually specified as such, in the typical secondary school curricula) is also "only" a theory.

This is a good point you've made, but let me interject a difference in our thought process.

I really think it comes down to what you "Beleive." There is a sense of faith required whether scientist like it or not. The Theory Of Gravity we see the effects of every day so that's not hard to believe, however the Theory Of Evolution as far as a whole species change has not only never been observed, it also makes no sense from what evidence we do find and is speciously void of many inner linking connections one would logically conclude should be availiable to research. Does this mean evolution does not exist? No, but science has yet to show a valid observable instance and makes leaps and bounds to try and justify it's conclusion which I, and most find unreliable.

If science and others with agendas were fully honest about evolution, it would simply admit, there is evidence, but not enough solid evidence to make evolution a fact.

If science and others with agendas were fully honest about evolution, it would simply admit, there is evidence, but not enough solid evidence to make evolution a fact.

Evolution is fact. There is no controversy in science as to whether it not it happens.

Microevolution has been observed (moths) and tested (antibiotic resistance).

Macroevolution has been observed (finches, plants) and tested (bacteria).

There's, quite honestly, a ridiculous amount of evidence.

really think it comes down to what you "Beleive."

That is indeed a "difference in our thought process[es]."

Although belief certainly affects individual scientists in various ways, I think that the content of science can be determined reasonably objectively (by consulting it's professional literature) independently of what scientists "believe".

Indeed I insist on the actual independence of "what scientists believe" from what should be taken to be the content of science.

The content of science is comprised of those theories, principles, etc, that working scientists actually utilize or implicate on the conduct of ongoing, original research. IOW if scientists actually use an idea, then that idea is part of science regardless of whether those scientists "believe in" the idea. This is not just an academic point. For instance Einstein famously disbelieved quantum dynamics, but he used the mathematical formalisms of the theory nevertheless.

If every single scientist on the face of the earth woke up tomorrow and declared their disbelief in evolution, but continued to use evolutionary theories in their research, then the status of evolution as a part of science would be unchanged by their mere affirmations of belief or disbelief.

OTOH if some radically different theory managed to displace evolution in the actual practice of science, then evolution would cease to be part of science, even if scientists continued to declare their belief in it.

To put all that more briefly: What scientists believe is irrelevant (for the purpose of determining the content of science, and therefore what should be taught as science in introductory curricula). What is relevant is what scientists do (what ideas they actually use).