Sabre - I certainly recommend that you read Richard Dawkings books "The selfish Gene", "Extended Phenotype" and "The blind Watchmaker".
His writing is very clear, complex subject are made simple. Even though he is anti-religion, I am pretty sure that no religious person will be turned away from religion by reading his books but would rather be filled with awe before beauty and elegance of the Creation - whatever meaning he applies to this word.
On the "theory" term - I had though about it a little and I think I have an explanation that resolves this argument one and for all.
Most people - even some scientists, especially talking to laymen use the term "theory" to mean "speculative assertion" or "hypothesis" instead of "factual knowlege" or "proven hypothesis". The word "hypothesis" is almost never used.
It is perfectly fine for anyone to apply that meaning to word theory and say "Evolution is only a theory" meaning it's a speculative assertion, a hypothesis. As long as your audience is clear on what you mean by that term. You may be asked to explain why you have such opinion, but you are certainly entitled to it.
What I do not consider a valid statement is when someone says "Scientists call it 'theory' - so they admit it's speculative" as evidence of their argument. If you quote someone as evidence, you have to use the same meaning as the speaker does, not one that you usually do.
By calling evolution "a theory", R. Dawkings certainly does not admit any doubts to it's validity. It may still be wrong, but his statement is not an evidence. That's all.
I wish textbooks and professors were more carefull in selecting the words they use. If theory conveys higher degree of confidence than hypothesis but not certainity, than what term does?
"Fact" is not it, "theory" combines many facts. "Truth" is not it - there is no such term in science and even facts are not considered to be "truth".
The devalvation of the term "theory" was certainly aggravated by crooks calling their half-baked speculations, guesses and hypothesis "theory".
As for anyone accepting the science as infallible, that is just not true. We all know that any scientific statement may eventually be found wrong by science itself. A single evidence to the contrary is sufficient to relegate a theory to the junkpile - as happened countless times.
But there must be things that are accepted as current state of knowlege just in order to get out of bed. What is knowlege is a very complex question deserving more than a single college course, so I cannot do it justice in a post.
BTW, when I made my example and said ""the only spontaneous mechanism we've come up with a theory for that explains producing complexity..." , I did not mean that "theory" as "hypothesis".
Because I was not talking about biological or social or memetic evolution but evolutionary approach in general.
That evolution works and produces higher complexity is tested. modelled, reproduces and thus proven in many areas, most spectacularly in software.
Species may not have arisen as a result of evolution, but complexity certainly did in genetic algorithms and few other areas.
hyena426: then how does a bumble bee fly?,,According to aeronautical science, the bumble-bee shouldn't be able to fly.,lol they still cant figure that one out,,lol,,,do you beleve bumble bees can fly? sience doesnt show anything besides how dumb we are somtimes,
Unlike religiion, science is not a fixed dogma but an ongoing process. We do not know yet why bumble bee flies. Our models and equasions are not yet sufficient. That does not mean science is not valid. We used to not know many things that we know now. The amount of knowlege doubles every tne years.
BTW, bumlebee flies by using during the backstroke the energy of the vortices generated during the forward stroke. US military is trying to build an unmanned drones based on the same principle.
You are just ignorant of the current state of knowlege but your ignorance is not an evidence of someone else's problem.
If you really want to name a propblem or two that science is not close to solving yet, talk about reconsiling relativity with quantum mechanics or such, not simple stuff.
miko
