Replies

"Please explain your position of least relavent."

He meant that,

"An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

is not what is meant by scientific theories. The definition that does relate to a scientific theory is,

" 1-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

That is a scientific theory, at least a very brief description of one. It is not something that has been *proved*; only mathematical theorems can be proved, and only because all of the premises are axiomatic. A=A cannot be anything else. Other theories, like Newton's laws of gravity, cannot be proved. In fact, they are not correct in certain circumstances. That is why Einstein devised his theory of relativity, which has also not been proved. It is the best theory we have with the evidence we have.

The same with Evolution. Saying that because it is an *unproven theory* only means that it is just like every other scientific theory. If you want to make an argument against it, you have to provide better evidence.

I hope that helped.

Please explain your position of least relavent [sic].

If I theorize that you had grits and toast for breakfast yesterday, that's a 'conjecture based on limited information or knowledge'.

On the other hand, the fact of evolution is one of the deeply studied and widely confirmed phenomena in the realm of empirical science. Tens of thousands of researchers are involved in extending our understanding of its workings, and have been for 150 years. Hence, were you to say that the theory of evolution is "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture", you would be misusing the term 'theory' in an especially egregious way.

I theorize that you wouldn't want to do that.