Why don't they change the name to "The Fact of Evolution"?

Question

"Theory" gives creationists hope, when in reality there is none.
And change "gravitational theory" to "the fact of gravity" incase they start to question this one too.

I know Frak, im talking about their hope in a bogus theory, not hope in general

Obvouisly darwin was not completely correct, just as newton and einstein were not completely correct. But, this doesn't change the view that gravity is a fact. Apperently some of you admit to micro-evolution, which is a provable FACT. And microevolution over billions of years? Remember evolution says nothing about the origin of life, only the origin of the species. How about "The Fact of Microevolution" ?

Macroevolution? im not saying a wolf gave birth to a german sphepherd, but over a slow process it became a german shepherd......Explain this: chihuahua, while still the sam species, obvouisly significant change occured, which could eventually give rise to a new species.

Answer 1

Fortunately, scientists hardly care what religious zealots think...

Answer 2

Religion and science are not at odds first of all. Fringe elementso on both sides create this appearance.

But, as for your question, can you prove evolution? Until you can prove something through scientific data, it is a theory. That is science. You can't get around it.

Read the book "The Case for a Creator" - you'd be surprised what direction science is pointing in with the discoveries over the last 20 - 30 years or so.

Answer 3

Mark - Our hope comes from God, and not the name of a scientific model. And I think most Christians know that the scientific use of theory does not mean just an educated guess, though many will say "it is just a theory." But you must admit that even though the evolutionary model is such a great fit, it still is not a fact, and that evolutionists do not claim evolution as absolute truth. It is wrong of us to say that the theory of evolution is just a theory in the non scientific usage of the term. But it is not a fact. And this is a science that has become political and religious in the sense that there is a bias based on the extreme emotion and implications of it. To a lesser extent this is seen in the cause of global warming.
Not nearly as emotional, yet scientists on both sides of the issue claiming facthood. It is not just a matter of the evidence, but the interpretation of it.

Answer 4

For thousands of years people have put their lives on the lines for whatever gods they chose and they will continue to b*tch, whine and kill whenever someone tells them that their god/s did not do something and there is a more logical way something came about. Never mind that choice is a variety of life.

Bottom line: I think it is time that parents that feel for there money they learn creation than okay but don't stop my child from learning Evolution cause I pay money too for his education. I am tired that he has to feel pressure to believe in God or go to service or any of that stuff people should respect my right as his parent to not bring such things up to my child as I won't theirs.

Answer 5

so ok evolution theory...you dont believe it, you believe in god and adam and eve and all that...ok then for you...why do you think people really care about what your opinion about evolution is???
but anyway why do you say I believe in god instead of i know of god, i have the certainty god exists or something like that.?
and by the way what hope can give anyone the theory of evolution...hope in what??? theory evolution tries to explain whatever happened millions of years ago, so what hope can anyone find in that???

Answer 6

Because scientists are open-minded realists. A fact implies something solid and unchanging. New things are always being discovered and realized.

Answer 7

The theory of gravity unlike the hoax of macro-evolution can be tested and demonstrated. Macro-evolution is a huge house of cards where isolated facts are viewed through the lens of unproved presuppositions biased to support the theory and strung together with guesswork about how things "might" have occurred.

The idea that inanimate matter came alive all by itself and then was organized by random chance mutations culled by natural selection and that it resulted in the storehouse of complex DNA code found in the millions of different species here on earth is ludicrous.

Now scientists are scambling to patch up the many holes in this "theory" that deserves to be tossed on the scrap heap by coming up with an new and improved "sudden origins" theory.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/uop-ppt012506.php

An article by University of Pittsburgh Professor of Anthropology Jeffrey H. Schwartz and University of Salerno Professor of Biochemistry Bruno Maresca, published Jan. 30 in the New Anatomist journal, shows that the emerging understanding of cell structure lends strong support to Schwartz's theory of evolution, originally explained in his seminal work, Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species (John Wiley & Sons, 2000).

In that book, Schwartz hearkens back to earlier theories that suggest that the Darwinian model of evolution as continual and gradual adaptation to the environment glosses over gaps in the fossil record by assuming the intervening fossils simply have not been found yet. Rather, Schwartz argues, they have not been found because they don't exist, since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change that began on the cellular level because of radical environmental stressors--like extreme heat, cold, or crowding--years earlier.

Determining the mechanism that causes those delayed expressions of change is Schwartz's major contribution to the evolution of the theory of evolution. The mechanism, the authors explain, is this: Environmental upheaval causes genes to mutate, and those altered genes remain in a recessive state, spreading silently through the population until offspring appear with two copies of the new mutation and change suddenly, seemingly appearing out of thin air. Those changes may be significant and beneficial (like teeth or limbs) or, more likely, kill the organism.

Why does it take an environmental drama to cause mutations? Why don't cells subtly and constantly change in small ways over time, as Darwin suggests?

Cell biologists know the answer: Cells don't like to change and don't do so easily. As Schwartz and Maresca explain: Cells in their ordinary states have suites of molecules-- various kinds of proteins--whose jobs are to eliminate error that might get introduced and derail the functioning of their cell. For instance, some proteins work to keep the cell membrane intact. Other proteins act as chaperones, bringing molecules to their proper locations in the cell, and so on. In short, with that kind of protection from change, it is very difficult for mutations, of whatever kind, to gain a foothold. But extreme stress pushes cells beyond their capacity to produce protective proteins, and then mutation can occur.

This revelation has enormous implications for the notion that organisms routinely change to adapt to the environment. Actually, Schwartz argues, it is the environment that knocks them off their equilibrium and as likely ultimately kills them as changes them. And so they are being rocked by the environment, not adapting to it.

Answer 8

If they called it the fact of evolution, they'd be lying to the whole world. God will explain this to you on judgement day. are you ready?

Answer 9

Because it is a theory. I have no problem with what that word means, unlike intellectually dishonest creationists.

Answer 10

Because science has better things to so than worry about small minds.