Just A Theory
"We are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
Richard Dawkins
And the debate rages on now called Intelligent Design the topic was "debated" last night on Cross-Fire. No, I have no idea why I was watching, and as expected the standard arguments were trotted out. "Yes, but it is only a theory", says Tucker Carlson, a wicked young man with the bow tie. Didn't this bozo ever take a science class, if he did was he listening, is he that fucking stupid, does he have a degree in anything but arrogance? The problem of course is with the definition of theory. The average person applies a definition something like this: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture, guess, surmise, feeling, hunch, impression, suspicion, and therein lies the problem. Theory as it is used in Science is a totally different beast. A fair definition of theory as understood by scientists would be any body of ideas in science. It does not mean a guess, hypothesis, hunch or feeling. If you believe a "theory" is unproven, don't drive across any bridges. The engineers used Stress Theory to design the bridge and remember gravity is just a theory. The majority of Americans think that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools along side Evolution. Intelligent Design is not science, there is no experiment you can conduct to prove it one way or the other. It is not falsifiable. It is useless in providing any further knowledge. The polite response to those that make the suggestion is that they lack education in science and don't understand the issue. If you are not polite, like Dawkins you refer to them as ignorant, stupid or insane, and in case there is any doubt remaining just remember what a scientist calls a theory most of us just call facts.
For some additional information on the scientific method
Comments
Intelligent Design, Creationisn, whatever...what these Christian wackos do is pervert Karl Popper's philosophy of science to fit their non-scientific views. They no longer use science to prove their specious and ridiculous ideas, but instead misuse Popper's philosophy to attack Evolution. Popper's central tenant was that no claim in natural science is completely "provable" or a "law." Instead, new evidence or testing that supports a theory only makes it provisionally correct until the next set of testing or evidence proves or disproves it.
What these idiots have yet to grasp is that, epistemologically, they are arguing apples and oranges. They want use their theology to "prove" or "disprove" ideas in natural science. The only problem is, natural science has no method or test to detect or prove the existence of God or God's power. So they are not only not scientists, they are also lousy theologians.
My favorite thing to do is ask Creationists to explain God's existance scientifically. The answer I usually get is usually something stupid along the lines of, "Well, it's God. He doesn't need to be proven." Excuse me, but this is science, and in science, everything needs to have a basis of fact before it becomes part of a theory. If God is exempt from science, then why on Earth would he have his own scientific theory. Besides that, God is the contradiction in that very theory. According to these anti-scientists, life cannot just generate by itself, and therefore God must have done it. Well, now that we've displaced the creation of life onto God, where did God come from? Did he just pop out of thin air? How come life on Earth needs a creator, but the creator needs no explanation? I think if God has no scientific basis for existance, than that removes him from the topic entirely. And once you take God out of Creative Design, the whole theory pretty much falls apart.