Quote:
|
Originally Posted by prosequence
There is some truth in your sarcasm. Atoms, as well as many other scientific rules are based on theories. Not proven, not factual, just predictable.
|
I think that you are confusing the colloquial definition of a theory with a scientific definition. The colloquial definition might be "an uproven guess." A scientific theory is very different.
CSflim started a thread on this topic a year ago here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=14114
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by prosequence
I guess the point I was trying to make is that evolutionists accept their theories to be true, not unlike the way creationists do.
|
This is a serious mischaracterization of evolutionists. Evolutionary scientists doing research derive falsifiable predictions from evolutionary theory and test those predictions. This is not "accepting their theories to be true". Instead, they expose evolutionary theory to the possibility of falsification every day.
This is a bit of an oversimplification, but it is true.
A more complicated explanation would have to descrive how metatheories (like evolutionary theory) are evaluated differently from mid-level theories (like the theory parental investment and sexual selection), which are evaluated differently from specific evolutionary hypotheses and predictions derived from those hypotheses.
The bottom line is that evolutionists expose their theory to falsification, creationists do not.