I just wanted to point out the following...
If Evolution was indeed “settled science” then it would no longer be officially called the THEORY of Evolution, and would instead be official considered the LAW of Evolution.
I don’t want to argue about which belief is correct either, but isn’t the above a pretty basic fact of science regarding the naming thing? A theory has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and when it is, it is said to be a LAW. [For instance Newton had a THEORY of Gravity, long before it became Newton’s LAW of Gravity.]
posted on 05/06/2009 10:09:55 PM PDT
( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ ANTI-OBAMA STUFF : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
You are correct, of course. I misspoke. Evolution is still a theory.
posted on 05/07/2009 7:18:17 AM PDT
If Evolution was indeed settled science then it would no longer be officially called the THEORY of Evolution, and would instead be official considered the LAW of Evolution.
It's as unsettled as all those other tenuous theories, like the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Special Relativity, the Theory of General Relativity, the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, the Theory of Atoms and the Theory of Electromagnetism.
In other words, it makes testable, verifiable, repeatable predictions about what we see and will see in the physical sciences. Unlike, for example, so-called Creation Science.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson