While "there are many scientists who do not subscribe to that theory", there are far more, if not most scientist who are readily willing to accept it as theory(i think someone earlier in the thread presented a percentage (85-90%)).
There is a chance that maybe we disagree on how to look at this but, simply because more people subscribe to something than others, is not good enough for me to believe in it.
Fortunately, there are people in the present who are beginning to publish textbooks without the biases, i.e. positions in wars, battles, slavery-cotton, and even the destruction of native american life.
So what exactly is my point? We are not our founding fathers. We cherish the gift they have given us, but we must work for "a more perfect union". Not only did our founding fathers knew that the existing laws/beliefs were more than imperfect, they aimed to adjust with the times, to adapt/adopt accordingly with future challenges.
This also is a matter of opinion, I can tell you first hand that when I was in college (recent grad) that I was taught things that were not factual and that were simply propoganda. I agree that fully that also took place in regards to our history and so on, I would argue though that it is still going, but it may just be on the other side of the table.
Intelligent design does not use empirical data to assert itself. Instead it uses an entirely different approach to explaining existence by having no evidence that can be tested. Simple as that. While I am no bigbang/stringtheory/dimensions expert, I do know that intelligent design fails scientific scrutiny.
While this is a common view on how creationists argue there views, it is an incorrect one. I will concede that there is an area that is taken by faith, specifically the origin of our planet, and the origin of life, I also would assert that evolutionists take the same faith oriented approach to the same question. The origin of our planet, and life, is structured by evolutionists in a manner that fits what their worldview is. Anyway, creationist use lots of evidence to prove their views, in fact the same evidence that evolutionists use, fossil records, logic, laws of science, thermodynamics, and so on. So while sure since you cant see God, creationists would argue that the evidence of Him is right in front of us, just as an evolutionist could say, sure while I don't have proof of how the world began, or multiple celled organisms, the evidence of how it began is right in front of us.
The statement "still just a theory" is disturbing. Not only must you differentiate ideas, assumptions, opinions, guesses or hunches from the scientific stand on theory, you must understand what a scientific theory really means. What we are excited and passionate about is "a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable"(wiki). So please don't equate what scientists have worked hard and tested time and time again to "just a theory". It is beyond what you have defined as "theory".
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I see a difference here. I would assert again that just because lots of people think that it's a fact, that doesn't make it one. So, since evolution is unanimously regarded as true by scientists, to me that just make it the majority opinion, and not any more of a fact. Like I said before, it once was unchallenged that the Earth was flat, that didn't make it flat.
There is a chance that maybe we disagree on how to look at this but, simply because more people subscribe to something than others, is not good enough for me to believe in it.
Fortunately, there are people in the present who are beginning to publish textbooks without the biases, i.e. positions in wars, battles, slavery-cotton, and even the destruction of native american life.
So what exactly is my point? We are not our founding fathers. We cherish the gift they have given us, but we must work for "a more perfect union". Not only did our founding fathers knew that the existing laws/beliefs were more than imperfect, they aimed to adjust with the times, to adapt/adopt accordingly with future challenges.
This also is a matter of opinion, I can tell you first hand that when I was in college (recent grad) that I was taught things that were not factual and that were simply propoganda. I agree that fully that also took place in regards to our history and so on, I would argue though that it is still going, but it may just be on the other side of the table.
Intelligent design does not use empirical data to assert itself. Instead it uses an entirely different approach to explaining existence by having no evidence that can be tested. Simple as that. While I am no bigbang/stringtheory/dimensions expert, I do know that intelligent design fails scientific scrutiny.
While this is a common view on how creationists argue there views, it is an incorrect one. I will concede that there is an area that is taken by faith, specifically the origin of our planet, and the origin of life, I also would assert that evolutionists take the same faith oriented approach to the same question. The origin of our planet, and life, is structured by evolutionists in a manner that fits what their worldview is. Anyway, creationist use lots of evidence to prove their views, in fact the same evidence that evolutionists use, fossil records, logic, laws of science, thermodynamics, and so on. So while sure since you cant see God, creationists would argue that the evidence of Him is right in front of us, just as an evolutionist could say, sure while I don't have proof of how the world began, or multiple celled organisms, the evidence of how it began is right in front of us.
The statement "still just a theory" is disturbing. Not only must you differentiate ideas, assumptions, opinions, guesses or hunches from the scientific stand on theory, you must understand what a scientific theory really means. What we are excited and passionate about is "a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable"(wiki). So please don't equate what scientists have worked hard and tested time and time again to "just a theory". It is beyond what you have defined as "theory".
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I see a difference here. I would assert again that just because lots of people think that it's a fact, that doesn't make it one. So, since evolution is unanimously regarded as true by scientists, to me that just make it the majority opinion, and not any more of a fact. Like I said before, it once was unchallenged that the Earth was flat, that didn't make it flat.
