> The answer to that is deceptively simple: It isn't a theory. > > Now, you might call it a theory because the word "theory" is used > differently by lay people and scientists. But we are talking about a > science class here and therefore we have to use the word theory in > context that scientists use it. Creationism does not purport to > provide a scientific theory. It does not provide testable hypotheses > and posits as its prime agent a force which supposedly exists outside > of the scientific realm. If you cannot use the methods of science to > test a hypothesis and the hypothesis requires something which is said > to exist outside of natural law, then it cannot be a scientific > theory.
I think an interesting article on the E/C debate can be read at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html which sums things up this way: "In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution." As someone who believes in God and Creation, it's the beginning of evolution that I have disagreements with. That said, I know that biological organisms do evolve to survive in their environment. The one thing I don't understand is how someone can be an evolutionist and an environmentalist. If the theory holds true, then all that is going to happen is evolution, which is as it should be. Biological organisms adapting to survive in their environment. Hatton ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:275897 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
