The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

[nkgupta80]

Those arent transfossils. Its a different breed of apes that are extinct. Do you even know what a transitional fossil is? Its somethig that shows a animal actually in transition. Which would directly explain the evolution process. But we have no such thing do we? I dont even see fish with legs do you? This is all peculiar to me. Now I do beleive evolution to a point in that survival of the fittest. Because we can see that evident today.

Of course fish didn't come outta water by evolving legs. Scientists aren't stupid. They thought of this, they did the research. They found the answers all around us. They became amphbians. The great thing about this theory is thta you don't even need fossils to prove it. (yes there are tons of transitional fossils), but you can see it in the species today also, and prove their similarities using genetics. The similarity between various amphibious creatures and fish is so close at times that research has shown that they are indeed transitional creatures in the evolutionary process. Example is amphibious lizards with small appendages as the precursors to legs in ur case. Yes, evolution is supported by something even better than fossils: live creatures.

When these similarities are found, scientists don't stop there. They've now gone on to analyzing the similarities in the inner anatomy and behaviour and then even further by analyzing genetics. ALL research has supported the idea of evolution.

A scientific process in order to be beleiveable or even conceivable needs to be applicable to today. Like that of any other process such as nuclear fission and fussion which works in todays world. Now if Einstien proposed that this would work but it never did then no one would beleive him. It would remain very much a theory. For instance, the theory of creationism, is applicable today becasue people create/make/construct/architect things. Which this theory is very much applicable today. However, the thing that cant be explained is where did God get all this stuff to make this earth? And some dont beleive in a God so how do we even know tht a God even exists? All of these are very good questions and I cant fully answer them with 100% indellable proof but neither can you on the evolution theory. Yes you have lots of evidence that would help substantiate your claim but at the same time so do I. Now some you dont agree with in regards to me and some I dont agree with in regards to you.

ok...did you just skip over the mid-paragraph of my post, I just gave you the applications of it. And they are pretty crucial applications in research and the understanding of other biological theories.

In all through history scientist have drawn many hypothesis in several different fields. And in each hypothesis it shows convincing data. Now in these hypothesis and testing it is applicable today. But in evolution as it exclaims that man has evolved from many creatures to becoming this very sophisticated being is in direct flaw with the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states the very opposite. Which is a law not a theory. So you cant dispute that. You can basically take about anything in this world and in time its state of being and health will decrease. Even in time rock gets brittle and eventually crumbles. And in water if you put it in a cup and leave it outside what do you suppose will happen? Will it evolve into better more tasting drinking water or will it slowly evaporate and get dirty and yucky? When you buy a brand new car does it look better and drive better 10yrs later(without doing any work on it whatsoever)? So this right here disproves evolutions very foundations. Becasue evolution proclaims that everything gets better. Which is horribly wrong in every attribute.

the ignorant thermodynamics argument. If you know ur science, u'd know that the second law applies to closed systems. The earth is an open system. Remember the food chain haha, we learned it in like 2nd grade. the sun gives energy to us. Life evolved in an open system. The way you describe it, stars wouldn't exist, our planet wouldn't exist, there would just be chaotic blobs of matter flying everywhere in the universe. therefore ur argument is horribly wrong in every attribute.

The sad thing is, the leading creationists use this argument. Shows how much they know about science.....

 

[SKILMATIC]

Again, creationism isn't a theory. A theory requires there to be some evidence to support it. Pointing out possible flaws in evolution is something very different from providing evidence to support creationism.

Having the opinion that evolution is wrong doesn't constitute proof for creatioinism, either.

Dismissing reams of scientific data from multiple fields of study doesn't constitute proof for creationism.

Claiming that there is proof for creationism, then later saying that there isn't factual proof, but it relies on faith is hypocritical, and an admission that creationism doesn't qualify as a theory.

My beliefs are based on verifiable evidence. Yours are based on faith in your religion. You automatically dismiss anything that counters your faith. If it can't be verified, I don't believe in it.

Well then, how do you beleive in wind? You cant see it? How do you beleive in gravity? The point is even though you dont have facts about it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Yes I have beleif in my religion. Yes I have beleif in creationsism. But you keep drilling that just because I dismiss evolutionism doesnt mean it supports creationism which is wrong. Its becasue of the disprovation of the theory which leads in direct evidence of creationsism. Also simple mathematics which are indisputed makes light of creationism. Like I said there is evidentiary support for both claims but not one has been sustained to be fully factual. Just because I choose to use the evidence against evolution in concordance to my beleifs doesnt mean that it is repudiated.

I can understand your beleif in evolution as it is very entising. But so is the Matrix :lol:

Yes you do have evidentiary support for your beleifs but so do I. And dont ask becasue I have already exclaimed that to you in earlier posts you have just merely disregarded it as proof or sustanance ofmy beleifs.

 

[Caine]

The fact of the matter is this.
Your not going to get Evolutionists to deny all the research that has been made and say, Hey "GOD" did all of it.
And your not going to tell a god fearing man that his god didn't create everything and that the first chapter of the old testament isnt to be taken literal (Cause if it was... then screwin' yer sister must have been the only way one woman and one man were able to spawn 6billion or however many people are around today).

The important issue still stands.. should Evolution be taught in school.
And my opinion is YES of Course!

Why is that? Because its SCIENCE. They aren't trying to tell people where we came from, they are teaching Biology, and how the scientists who study Evolution are using the scientific process to do so, how many species have seemed to "adapt" to changes.. yadda yadda. you get the point.

The Bible isn't a science and has no place in America's public school system. If the god fearing man wants his child to learn about the bible in school.. send him to one of those christian private schools instead.

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

Well then, how do you beleive in wind? You cant see it? How do you beleive in gravity? The point is even though you dont have facts about it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

The difference is that these concepts are testable. I can prove the existence of wind just by walking outside. I can feel physical evidence of the phenomenon everyday. Wind a physical reality, and therefore not an apt comparison.

Gravity is closer to the point, but still a point that defeats your arguement. Gravity is just a theory, like almost all scientific "facts", but even so it is tested to the point that its existence and workings as we have defined it are accepted as fact. Once again i can test the force of gravity through living my life. What holds me to the earth? What causes things to fall? These events can be recorded and reproduced to form a coherent set of rules. When i drop a feather and a lead weight the weight falls faster correct? But if I repeat the same event in a vacuum, both fall at the same rate. This change is the result of a testable law of physics (the gravitational constant), not an act of God.

The only evidence you can produce for creationism are a few pages of paper, pieces of paper that we have no proof of their pristine and unchanged nature. The Bible, vernerable and holy as it is, is still the writings of humans, and thus under the influence of human faults. The words we read to day may not be the words of old. From translation errors, to "corrections" made deliberatly by translators, we can not be sure that it is as it was originally.

Even "creationism light" (intelligent design) is defeated by its own logic. They use the eye as their ultimate example. "The eye could not have come about through natural processes, there must have been a higher intelligence influencing things" Thats utter nonsense. It would be perfectly natural for the eye to come about through evolution, its just that these things take place on a timescale we cannot hope to comprend. I single change on the way from one celled organism to eye could have taken hundreds of thousands of years. No wonder this is such a hard concept to grasp when the whole of recorded human history is less than 7000 years, and people really only remember about half of it.

Still, as a human being i cannot rule out the possibility of God. The finite cannot hope to comprehend the infinite, which is, I suppose, what you base your "faith" on (regardless of your realization of this fact or not). If creation is the work of God's hands, could not evolution be his tool?

-OTG

 

[SKILMATIC]

The fact of the matter is this.
Your not going to get Evolutionists to deny all the research that has been made and say, Hey "GOD" did all of it.
And your not going to tell a god fearing man that his god didn't create everything and that the first chapter of the old testament isnt to be taken literal (Cause if it was... then screwin' yer sister must have been the only way one woman and one man were able to spawn 6billion or however many people are around today).

I see your point which is valid. But your actually right back then they did commit acts of insest to populate the world but back then they didnt know better. And it was looked on to be normal. But in later times of course this changed. Another difference between the new and old that alot of people do no know is that the law changed from the two periods. Instead of sacrificing a new born lamb for the forgiveness of ones sins(old testament) they just repeant to God(via prayer). Also incest became immoral.

The important issue still stands.. should Evolution be taught in school.
And my opinion is YES of Course!

Of course but to be fair to people who are religious should be taught all different ways. They should be taught both.

Why is that? Because its SCIENCE. They aren't trying to tell people where we came from, they are teaching Biology, and how the scientists who study Evolution are using the scientific process to do so, how many species have seemed to "adapt" to changes.. yadda yadda. you get the point.

Of course I do.

The Bible isn't a science and has no place in America's public school system. If the god fearing man wants his child to learn about the bible in school.. send him to one of those christian private schools instead.

It costs money to do that.

Look, if school is going to do without prayer and Bible in school becasue people dont want to get offended of religion then it needs to be fair both ways. People should be taught both processes. Yes it may not be science but its still a way that we could be made from. I dont want to only be taught about the big bang I want to be taught all different ways we could have been here. And let me or the student decide which one is more feasable.

The difference is that these concepts are testable. I can prove the existence of wind just by walking outside. I can feel physical evidence of the phenomenon everyday. Wind a physical reality, and therefore not an apt comparison.

Well heres something that gravity and wind doesnt have. My God walked the earth and was seen by many and heard be many. He performed miracles that are still taught some 2000yrs later. So in a sense My God was seen which is more than what you can say fro gravity or wind. Hows that for scientific proof. Jesus is God in a human form and in a tangiable sense. "God the Son"

So theres some evidence that he does exist and thats all I need. And thats history gentlemen. If you dont beleive history then I dont knwo what else to tell ya. Mabe you like beleiving in theories. But I like beleiving in facts and support them with faith. How about you?

 

[nkgupta80]

Well heres something that gravity and wind doesnt have. My God walked the earth and was seen by many and heard be many. He performed miracles that are still taught some 2000yrs later. So in a sense My God was seen which is more than what you can say fro gravity or wind. Hows that for scientific proof. Jesus is God in a human form and in a tangiable sense. "God the Son"

Uhh can't we say that for Buddha, Krishna, hindu gurus, etc. All that talk of 2000 yrs of devotion, miracles, divine status.. can apply to these historical figures and many more.

Anyways I respect your faith in ur religion, but as for science and evolution, its these very ideas (yes evolution is very applicable) that helped researchers and doctors come up with the treatments and surgeries that may one day save ur life or that of a loved one...without evolution, our whole insight into genetics and biology would be gone. I mean seriosuly, every breakthrough in biology and genetics in the last 150 yrs is a result of Darwin's evolution. Its did to biology what Einstein's theory of relativity did to physics.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Uhh can't we say that for Buddha, Krishna, hindu gurus, etc. All that talk of 2000 yrs of devotion, miracles, divine status.. can apply to these historical figures and many more.

As much as I respect Buddhism I cant say that becasue buddha isnt a God nor is he taught to be one in their religion. So your wrong in that sense. However, buddha wasnt predicated on divinity but rather than enlightenment.

Anyways I respect your faith in ur religion, but as for science and evolution, its these very ideas (yes evolution is very applicable) that helped researchers and doctors come up with the treatments and surgeries that may one day save ur life or that of a loved one...without evolution, our whole insight into genetics and biology would be gone. I mean seriosuly, every breakthrough in biology and genetics in the last 150 yrs is a result of Darwin's evolution. Its did to biology what Einstein's theory of relativity did to physics.

I cant argue there. I beleive that as well. And I respect your beleiefs too. Its in these respects where we may live civily. For without these we would end up like the ME

 

[kal-el]

As much as I respect Buddhism I cant say that becasue buddha isnt a God nor is he taught to be one in their religion. So your wrong in that sense. However, buddha wasnt predicated on divinity but rather than enlightenment.

Skilly, I was saying a while back that Buddhism was an athiest religion,because they don't buy into a "God". I merely said Buddha is simply a prophet, isn't is correct that YOU said that's wrong, and Buddha is indeed considerd "God" by buddhists?

 

[MrFungus420]

Well then, how do you beleive in wind? You cant see it? How do you beleive in gravity?

Simple, both are verifiable. Both can be proven to exist. Both can be detected with my own senses, and by instrumentation.

The point is even though you dont have facts about it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

That's true. And, if someone claims something, and can't provide any evidence for it, I probably won't believe that claim.

However, how does bringing up two things that are easily verifiable make that point?

Yes I have beleif in my religion. Yes I have beleif in creationsism. But you keep drilling that just because I dismiss evolutionism doesnt mean it supports creationism which is wrong. Its becasue of the disprovation of the theory which leads in direct evidence of creationsism.

No, pointing out how one can be wrong is not proof for the other.

Look at it this way. Let's say I say something is red, and you say it's blue. If all I do is give reasons why it isn't blue, and even if I manage to prove that it isn't blue, I haven't proven that it is red, all I've done is prove that it isn't blue.

Also simple mathematics which are indisputed makes light of creationism. Like I said there is evidentiary support for both claims but not one has been sustained to be fully factual. Just because I choose to use the evidence against evolution in concordance to my beleifs doesnt mean that it is repudiated.

I can understand your beleif in evolution as it is very entising. But so is the Matrix :lol:

Yes you do have evidentiary support for your beleifs but so do I. And dont ask becasue I have already exclaimed that to you in earlier posts you have just merely disregarded it as proof or sustanance ofmy beleifs.

Ok, I won't ask, I'll get what you've claimed is proof for creationism.

(post 174)One, the population rate even if it was doubled every thousand yrs the population would be enormous that this earth would be crawling with peopel and animals. Where would we stick all the bodies or ashes?

The rate of population growth is not constant. There have been long periods when the population has been stable. There have been times when the population has decreased. There are entire civilizations tht have died off. You've tried to use the current rate of population increase to say that there are not enough people to support evolution. I pointed out the fallacy of that by showing that the numbers you gave would also, by the same logic, disprove creationism.

As for the bodies, I have a one word answer for that: decomposition.

(post 174)Also where are the transitional fossils? Man started as a fish right? Well wheres the human fish heads? Yeah evolution is supported real well. You forget that is just a theory too.

I've given you support for hundreds of transitional fossils. You dismiss them out-of-hand. You even made the specious claim that the platypus was claimed to be a transitional fossil. Specifically:

(post 179)To transitional fossils theres no such thing. Back in the day scitenst tried to use on of a duck bill platipus which isnt a transfossil. And neither is any of your examples.

In the same post, you also claimed that creationism is "just common sense".

(post 179)Becasue if there wasnt ever a creator/inventor/designer/architect then what you are litarally saying what happened is that a toronado whipped through the great plains and insodoing it constructed a metropolis far advanced than NYC. When this happened I will be a true beleiver of evolution.

You then tried to compare the evolution of living things with inanimate objects. You tried to say that because inanimate objects can't build themselves into structures, that evolution must be false.

(post 179)Or if some woman gives birth to a human/horse baby.

Then, you tried this little bit of illogic. Claiming that if this (a totally non-evolutionary event) occured, would make you a believer of evolution. The funny thing is that if this ever happened, it would pretty much totally disprove evolution and prove that there is some form of intelligent design.

(post 179) But the fact is in the last 6000yrs of our human history we havent seen 1 that is a sign of evolution.

Then, we see that you think that something that happens over millions of years should be visible in a few thousand. To put this into perspective, Let's say that it takes a seed one week to show it's first signs of growing. Apparently, you expect to see signs of growth in 10 minutes, and if there aren't sign of growth in those 10 minutes, then it's obvious that the seed will never grow.

In post 188, you basically reiterated these same things. But, in that post, you added the claim that what you are saying is the word of God.

In your next post (192), you again claimed to have evidence supporting creationism, again without giving any.

Your next post (193), you again dismiss transitional fossils out-of-hand. You do this even though the example that you mention (fish with legs) exists in the fossil record, and we even have at least one modern, living example of it. Have you ever heard of the mudskipper? It's pectoral fins have adapted to rudimentary legs.

In the same post, you claim that evolutionary theory isn't valid because it isn't applicable today. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management, dealing with drug resistant pathogens. It's used in the study of genetics. The entire field of phylogenic analysis is based on the evolutionary principle of common decent.

Then, again in the same post, you make the argument that the Second Law of Termodynamics doesn't allow evolution. This shows a lack of understanding of the Second Law. What it states is that in a closed system, the total entropy will not decrease. The main probelm with that being that the Earth is not a closed system. It has a continual energy input from the sun, and it contunually radiates some heat to space.

Your next post (194) has 4 links. Two don't work, one debunks several of the creationist claims, and one is a creationist website.

Your next two posts, 197 and 198, offer no argument. They attempt to offer a truce.

So, where is one bit of the evidence for creationism that you claim to have given? The best that I've seen is attempting to cast doubt on evolution with claims that have all been shown to be fallacious.

So, again, where is some evidence for creationism?

 

[MrFungus420]

Well heres something that gravity and wind doesnt have. My God walked the earth and was seen by many and heard be many. He performed miracles that are still taught some 2000yrs later. So in a sense My God was seen which is more than what you can say fro gravity or wind. Hows that for scientific proof. Jesus is God in a human form and in a tangiable sense. "God the Son"

So theres some evidence that he does exist and thats all I need. And thats history gentlemen. If you dont beleive history then I dont knwo what else to tell ya. Mabe you like beleiving in theories. But I like beleiving in facts and support them with faith. How about you?

All of that is according to the Bible. So, it is only proof if you first believe in it. It is in no way, shape or form, scientific.

It's a circular argument. You're trying to use the Bible to prove the existence of what's in the Bible.

 

[nkgupta80]

I cant argue there. I beleive that as well. And I respect your beleiefs too. Its in these respects where we may live civily. For without these we would end up like the ME
-SKILMATIC

Ok good. But then the debate comes into science class, you'll agree that intelligent design is not science. Thus, in science class, evolution will be taught as the standard in science. Yes there can be talk of why people may be against it or why it is controversial, but they will not present these creationist "theories" as an alternate to evolution in science. If you want to learn of theology, go take theology in college, or take a humanities/philosophy course.b

 

[SKILMATIC]

Ok good. But then the debate comes into science class, you'll agree that intelligent design is not science. Thus, in science class, evolution will be taught as the standard in science. Yes there can be talk of why people may be against it or why it is controversial, but they will not present these creationist "theories" as an alternate to evolution in science. If you want to learn of theology, go take theology in college, or take a humanities/philosophy course.b

Well I never argued that it should be taught in a science class did I? I just said there was scientific data that would support a devine creation. I think there should be a religions course in our public schools. That way they are prepared for the wolrd religions class that is needed in your humanities section. Besides it wouldnt hurt having a common knowledge of them. But this is just my opinion.

 

[tecoyah]

* I think there should be a religions course in our public schools. That way they are prepared for the wolrd religions class that is needed in your humanities section. Besides it wouldnt hurt having a common knowledge of them. But this is just my opinion.

That right there pretty Much sums it up for me......there is a place for ID in education.....just as there is a place for anything that furthers the growth of our Kids. But the key to me is classification, and placing context around the Data so as to avoid confusion in the developing mind. I can only imagine (no...seriously, I'm trying to imagine) what I would be like if I was not given the information about Evolution while young....and allowed to pursue it as I aged. These are the things that "Make" us who we are as adults.

 

[steen]

Now, that is an out and out lie. At no point in that post does Steen ask you for any facts about evolution. The only thing that you were directly asked for is evidence of your claim that people thought the Earth was 1 million years old when the Theory of Evolution started.

Thanks, but I am done with this guy. There is nothing gained with trying to debate somebody who deliberately and continuously lie. Skilmatic simply has no honest arguments, it is all about "getting" Evolution through any means possible never mind how much he has to lie in the process. It is pointless dealing with such a character.

 

[steen]

That right there pretty Much sums it up for me......there is a place for ID in education.....just as there is a place for anything that furthers the growth of our Kids.

What place is that? The same place where we teach that the Earth is flat?

But the key to me is classification, and placing context around the Data so as to avoid confusion in the developing mind. I can only imagine (no...seriously, I'm trying to imagine) what I would be like if I was not given the information about Evolution while young....and allowed to pursue it as I aged. These are the things that "Make" us who we are as adults.

Ah, like if we were never taught 2+2 and allowed to explore it when we are adults?

 

[tecoyah]

What place is that? The same place where we teach that the Earth is flat?Actually....I was thinking a social studies class
Ah, like if we were never taught 2+2 and allowed to explore it when we are adults?This really deserves no comment, as it is Shallow and Pointless

Should you decide to actually attempt a worthwhile comment, perhaps one not intended to make me look a fool (and instead make one of yourself), I might enjoy the debate....as it is, I think not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Saying evolution is a theory is like saying gravity is a theory. While technically true, the evidence for it is so great as to render it fact.

Evolution is a theory; gravity is a physical law.

Evolution -as- a theory was derived through inductive reasoning, where you take a limited data set, look for patterns within that set, and apply it to the world in general. To subcribe to Evolution as the Way Things Got Here is to have faith that the induction is correct -- that is, you must 'believe'.

Given the evidence supporting evolution so far, you might as well walk into any given classroom in any given school, see what color the chairs are, and then declare that all the chairs in all the classrooms in all the schools follow the same pattern.

Teaching evolution as a theory is fine, but teaching it as fact is not.

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

Teaching evolution as a theory is fine, but teaching it as fact is not.

I dont know how recently you have been in a high school biology course, but at my school, and all the schools of people i have talked to, the teacher gives a disclaimer before teaching evolution that explains how, although this is the best way modern science has come up with to explain lifes... evolution (for lack of a better word. Read: change, development, etc...), it is just a theory.

 

[Caine]

I dont know how recently you have been in a high school biology course, but at my school, and all the schools of people i have talked to, the teacher gives a disclaimer before teaching evolution that explains how, although this is the best way modern science has come up with to explain lifes... evolution (for lack of a better word. Read: change, development, etc...), it is just a theory.

a disclaimer? thats retarded, 8 years ago when I took high school biology we had no such disclaimers. Of course that is in the North Carolina school system.
People learned it, and I don't even remember anyone asking stupid questions about the bible while in class. Thats why I don't understand what the big freaking deal is about teaching Evolution in Public Schools.

Might I add that North Carolina is in the "Bible Belt" of the USA

 

[M14 Shooter]

a disclaimer? thats retarded, 8 years ago when I took high school biology we had no such disclaimers. Of course that is in the North Carolina school system.
People learned it, and I don't even remember anyone asking stupid questions about the bible while in class. Thats why I don't understand what the big freaking deal is about teaching Evolution in Public Schools.

Might I add that North Carolina is in the "Bible Belt" of the USA

I think I explained that:
Evolution is a theory, not fact.
Therefore it cannot be taught as fact.

 

[YamiB.]

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

When I was in Science class we were taught that nothing is 100% sure.

 

[Dezaad]

I think I explained that:
Evolution is a theory, not fact.
Therefore it cannot be taught as fact.

Well its not taught as fact, so why are you even bringing this up?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well its not taught as fact, so why are you even bringing this up?

Because, as you'll see from this thread, there are people that think it s a fact and advocate the teaching of it as such.

 

[nkgupta80]

Because, as you'll see from this thread, there are people that think it s a fact and advocate the teaching of it as such.

Well currently it is the accepted theory in science. Why is it taught as fact? Simply because there is no othre theory in science proposed that works. Evolution fits all biological, genetic, and populational phenomena. Of coruse there are small quirks, which scientists are currently researching on, thus modifying the theory.

Sorry INtelligent Design is not a scientific theory...(It really doesn't explain shiit) so it doesn't count.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well currently it is the accepted theory in science. Why is it taught as fact? Simply because there is no othre theory in science proposed that works.

Wow.
"We dont have any better idea, so we teach this as fact."
THAT'S solid.

Sorry INtelligent Design is not a scientific theory...(It really doesn't explain shiit) so it doesn't count.

Seems to me, ID explains everything.
And, its entirely possible that ID happened in such a way that supports evolution.

But the fact of the matter is, Evolution isnt a fact, and teaching it as such in a strong example of intellectual dishonesty.