Kim Hyatt wrote:
Sorry, Aaron - you'll get beat up a bit for your post, but I must add my $0.02 as well.
That's OK. I'm getting used to it. :)
Aaron, didn't know that you were a scientist. If so, then why do you call evolution ONLY (my emphasis, not yours) a theory?
I agree with what you have said regarding the scientific definition of "theory". In my mind there is a very large chasm between what is theory and what is fact. That is not to say that the theories are not true. A fact cannot be changed. A theory may change with new information. Jim Gibson just stated it rather well:
The theory idea in science is a great idea. Some smart person(s) comes up with a giant virtual jigsaw puzzle and then people can go out and try to find the real pieces. When unexpected pieces are found, then the smart people figure out how to make the new pieces fit until the theory more closely approximates reality or a better theory is conjured up.
I could not agree more. I accept a lot of what is proposed by the theory of evolution, as I understand it. To continue with the puzzle analogy, the problem I guess is that I am not convinced that the border of the puzzle has been completed. I still feel that there is a lot of possible explanations for how things got where they are. Sure the theory of evolution seems to be a good one, but then a lot of theories seemed like good ideas until they were overthrown by new evidence and information. Kim also asked:
How does that invalidate the theory and/or evidence in favor of it?
It does not. Being only a theory does not do anything about the evidence. It just means that it is someone's best guess at how the evidence all fits together.
Using the same criteria, how is creationism/ID an equally valid theory?
They are someone's idea of how the pieces fit. That is how all theories start. You defined a theory as:
... a theory is a proposition that can be tested or demonstrated through inquiry and rational thought processes.
In the very next line you said:
By definition, the broader implications for Darwin's theory of evolution, that is, evolution on a macro scale (geologic timescale), cannot be tested in the laboratory. Instead, the theory appears to hold generally true for evidence gleaned from the fossil record.
If you claim that ID is not a scientific theory because it cannot be tested, then you must, by your own criteria, admit that the theory of evolution cannot be a scientific theory. It cannot be tested. We can only think "rationally" and see if it makes sense. How does that differ from ID? I am certain that the ID supporters believe that they are thinking just as rationally as the evolution supporters. Who decides who is most rational? Remember, there are PhDs on both sides. Aaron