“Your job is to show they are wrong through research, experimentation, and publication.”
Incorrect. It is the job of those who support a theory as the best explanation for a phenomenon to answer challenges to the weaknesses of their theory, not the other way around.
For example the supporters of relativity were proposing a theory no less radical than evolution, but they were able to answer challenges by using their theory to make predictions that held up to experimental confirmation. They defended their theory successfully using the scientific method.
Evolution, on the other hand, can’t do that, so they will never be able to silence their critics through that method. So instead their supporters tend to resort to ad hominems and bad logic, which aren’t a substitute for mounting an actual scientific defense of the hypothesis.
Agreed completely.
Evolutionists can’t seem to wrap their minds around the fact that their beliefs are just as much faith-based as creationist beliefs. But none of us were there. Creationists place their faith in Scripture. Evolutionists place their faith in uniformitarianism, believing that there could’ve never been any conditions or circumstances when decay rates, etc., could’ve been different.
The Apostle Peter, in 2 Peter 3:1-6, condemns uniformitarianism in its denial of God’s Word. The Apostle specifically mocks the scoffers for being unwilling to admit that the Flood occurred.
Christ, in Matthew 7, condemns false prophets, which are people who call God a liar, claiming He said something He didn’t say, and claiming He didn’t say something He said. There’s really no doubt at all that God, in Genesis, teaches a 6-day creation. Whenever “yom” is used with an ordinal number, it ALWAYS means a 24-hour day. And God eliminated doubt even further by speaking of the evening and the morning of each of those days.
If that’s where it ended would be one thing. But then the Bible proceeds to teach creation throughout Scripture, even into the Book of Revelation. (Rev. 4:11, 10:6, 14:7)
So for a Christian to deny creation is a dangerous place to be. It’s not just Genesis they must deny, but passages strewn throughout Scripture, including Christ’s own words (Mark 10:6, 13:19). There’s also, of course, John 1:1-3 which declares Christ was the Creator.
But hey, if evolutionists thrown a bunch of lifeless chemicals together and can create a fully functional single-celled organism, complete with organelles, cytoplasm, a cell membrane, a nucleus and DNA they could prove their point. Problem is, that’s simply not possible and so could never happen. Period. Or if they could provide just a few uncontested examples of the millions of intermediate life forms required between species they could also prove their point. But they haven’t.
“Incorrect. It is the job of those who support a theory as the best explanation for a phenomenon to answer challenges to the weaknesses of their theory, not the other way around.”
No. Not all theories are as well documented or as empirically provable as relativity. You will note that even relativity is still a theory. Imperfect, but the best we can do so far on the subject.
There is no specific body that accepts theory into the body of science. You are free to ignore evolution as a theory if you wish. Even if you have no alternative. You are free to disprove it as best you can. But if you want to play in that sandbox, you gotta figure out what you think makes sense and explain it somehow.
Science in general accepts evolution because it seems to answer the objective facts as we see them as best as we are able to explain it. It’s just the best way to explain biological diversity so far. It need not explain everything, and it surely doesn’t. It’s up to folks who study it to advance, extend, or disprove parts or all of the theory.
It’s not up to a theory to explain all inconsistencies that inevitably arise. Those who get emotionally invested in one outcome or another are not likely to succeed in doing anything