[quote]And how did you come to that conclusion? I understand how theories function, and so long as the theory can theoretically be tested it is fine. While it is not very practical or even possible at this time, evolution can be tested. Since we can’t do anything about it at this time, it remains just a theory. This is fine, there is nothing wrong with that, but it should not be regarded as fact.
Now, sticking to evolution because it is a good learning tool is actually insulting to the theory in itself. Evolution can currently stand on its own as a theory, but when you have people that adhere to it only because it is a convenient theory you have a problem that leads to misrepresentation of said theory, as well as a lack of objectiveness when looking at other theories.
[/quote]
i’m trying to avoid being personal here, because this is the internet, so i’ll word it like this.
In high school, people are taught this nice little fairy tale about science. the fair tale goes like this. “Science is the empirical study of the world around us. it is based around the scientific method, which has (insert some random number here) steps to it. the key is though that science works by observing and measuring phenomena. to help explain these phenomena, scientists come up with hypothesis, which eventually turn into theories. if the theory holds against repeated observation, after a long time it becomes a law. bla bla bla”
all of this, after the line about “science is the empirical study of the world” is horse shit. generally, observation does not play a validating role in science. rather, generally it is falsification that is important (and yes, there’s quite the technical difference). theories are generally validated on their theoretical merit alone–ie, take Einstein’s relativity theory. it is of course seen as a plus if the theory makes predictions, but that is often a minor point. theories though of course are falsified all the time by contradictory results.
often though even contradictory results will not falsify a strong theory, as ad hoc amendments generally can fix any discrepancies. if you do not believe me, go study the history of science (the real history, not the fairy-tales in the text books).
further, this stuff about “scientific method” is bullshit. just what the “scientific method” is is a matter of debate. surely the text book writers don’t go around polling real working scientists to see what methods they use-and likewise working scientists surely don’t have some scientific method poster on their wall that they follow…
lastly, this whole “its just a theory” thing irks me. in professional science, being regarded as a theory is high praise. this idea of “theories” getting bumped up to the status of “laws” or “facts” is silly… real scientists stopped calling things “laws” about a hundred years ago after most of their “laws of nature” where shown to be false. the same thing with “facts”–scientists don’t worry about “laws” and “facts” much because they had to throw out too many supposed “laws” and “facts” too many times.
basically, real scientists are generally extreme pragmatists, and realistic. most of them understand that its very hard to get at the “Truth”, or to accurately describe the world around us. knowing this, they no longer have the optimism of the 19th century when scientists were busy writing up “laws”.
also, relativity is just a “theory” in physics, as well as all of quantum mechanics. are you ready to say we should treat these subjects carefully too?
you, and others, ascribe to this fairy-tale view of science.
oh, my sentences are not long. you might want to pick up Darwin’s book itself–some of his sentences are over a page long. besides, i’m keeping the technical jargon out of this, otherwise my posts would be unintelligible unless you up on current physics and philosophy of science.