Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Believe it or not, there really isn't a signifigant difference between the science of evolution and the science of atomic structure. (Well, actually, I'd say we're more uncertain about the exact nature of atomic structure, but that's another debate altogether.)
The theories of atomic structure are based on things we can't directly observe. We can't see an electron. How do we know they exist? Well, we see the effects these little particles have on their surroundings. We'll never be 'proven' right. (Scientific theories are by definition unprovable. They are falsifiable, however.) We just go with the best explanation for what we see in the world.
Evolution is actually easier, since it visibly occurs at a macroscopic scale (not refering to macroevolution, just stating that evolution affects visible things - Animals and plants). We SEE genetic mutations and changes. We SEE new species evolve. On the unobservable side of things, we can't see what happened in the past. But, in the exact the same manner we determine the existance of electrons, we can see the EFFECTS of past events - In this case, fossils. Fossils support the idea that the evolution we see today, among species, has been occuring for millions of years. And furthermore, that there were prior iterations of the species we see today - And common ancestors.
There's no relevant distinction here. Atomic structure? Can't see it. We see the effects, we see exists today, and we form a theory which allows us to predict what will happen in the future. Evolution? Can see it, but only in a limited manner. But the parts of it we CAN'T see are convienently recorded for us, at least partially, in the fossil record. And from this, we find evolution is the most effective theory regarding origins.
You're drawing a distinction where there is none.
(Note: You've said multiple times that you object to 'unproven' theories being taught. It seems your memory of high school science has slipped - No theory is proven. Not gravity, not relativity, not the existance of France, not evolution. We can only falsify.)
__________________ --Zadok001, aka Greater Good fanatic
The structure of atoms and the existence of quantum particles to explain the nature of matter is scientific theory.
Mutation and selection as the mechanism for common descent with modification is scientific theory.
They are both scientific theories that best fit the evidence. Your distinction is because you don't like the concept of evolution. Whether protons, neutrons, or electrons exists has no bearing on your interpretation of your holy book, so it doesn't matter to you obviously.
Neither of them are "proven" theories, nor will they ever be "proven" theories, but to the vast majority, they are substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.
You say science has a foundation and it does. Science is founded on past events not written about but locked away in there own individual time capsol. Science is physical based. The worship of god is based on the past too. but in written form. A man cannot see with his eyes but instead with his imagination. You are correct in stating that one will not fit into the other. It would be just as hard to try to touch a thought, you can't, but you can see touch feel and anylize a scienctific artifact, thats the biggy. If one lacks the ability to trust, they will never be able to see the the words in the book. All they will be able to do is comprehend the idea. To believe in the physical is easy, to see and understand the metaphysical is harder. To ignore two millenia of acknoledgment is harderst.
Linear Mode
