Perhaps I’m not making myself clear.
For hundreds of years man developed hypotheses and theories related to the “hard” sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.). A scientist who would have an idea would put for a hypothesis (If A is added to B we will get C). The scientist would test the hypothesis and if proven true (A+B=C) and can be repeated over and over under controlled conditions the hypothesis became a theory.
Within the last several hundred years the “soft” sciences were created (psychology, sociology, etc.). This made the definition of “theories” impossible to apply since “soft” sciences experiments were unable to be duplicated in most (if not all) cases. For example, what goes on in a person’s “inner psyche” would be difficult to duplicate from person to person.
To make “soft” sciences align with the “hard” sciences the definition of “theory” was loosened. The term theory no longer took on the meaning of a repeatable experiment it once held. Instead it was modified to mean many things including “abstract reasoning”. Even though it made the definition a mess and contradictory, this made the soft “scientists” happy and legitimized their professions.
This degradation of the meaning of “theory” has in recent years been further degraded by “junk” science. In this case ANYONE can put forth “abstract reasoning” and call it a theory. Recently the Theory of Greenhouse Emissions has started appearing in articles where there is precious little evidence only abstract reasoning by people with political agendas. The downsize in all of this is that the term “theory” is used to legitimize junk science.
I’m not so much picking on the “Theory of Evolution” as I am the “Theory of Evolution. Today the term “theory” gets thrown around more times than a basketball at a NBA basketball game. If you find a “flaw” in your “theory” then modify your theory but don’t think it incorrect. This is science-on-the-fly. I personally think the bar for the term “theory” has been lowered to such an extent that it has render the scientific community almost inept.
When I talked about creating the universe in a test tube I mean just as it would have been applied under the “hard” scientist notion. Otherwise, in this case, it should be called the Hypothesis of Evolution. There is nothing wrong with that and it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It only says that it has not been confirmed.
With the muddling of the definition today one should question why terms like the “Theory of Evolution”, or the “Theory of Greenhouse Emissions” is used. What is the motive behind such a statement? This was always been good scientific practice-at least in the past.
I personally find nothing in Genesis 1-6 to be incompatible with the Theory of Evolution. But just as God was able to make an iron axe handle float, or a virgin birth or someone raised from the dead God sometimes supercedes nature and there are NO scientific theories to explain it. In cases where God has superceded nature man is faced with three choices; 1) rationalize God’s action towards our understanding, 2) dismiss God’s action as errors, or 3) reconcile the world around us to God’s Sovereignty.