The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) states: that a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

Validation does not change a theory into a law. A law is a descriptive generalization about nature. When scientists talk about the theory of evolution or physicists talk about the atomic theory or the theory of relativity or the theory of gravity they aren't talking about it with reservations about its truth or validity.

In addition to the theory of evolution, or the concept of biological descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. 'Fact' being "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" Again, according the the NAS. The fossil record and other evidence testify that biological organisms have evolved through time. Though no one has observed the slow, gradual transformations illuminated in the fossil record, the evidence - indirect as it is - remains clear and compelling. This indirect evidence is not a weakness or a shortcoming in the evolutionary theory as some creationists try to argue. And though the fossil record is incomplete, pieces of the puzzle are being filled in every day with amazing, almost prescient predictability.

One of the fulcrums upon which creationists try to derail the theory of evolution is the argument that the incomplete fossil record suggest an incomplete theory and that ultimately this incomplete theory (or record) is therefore without any scientific validity. The presumption being that an 'absence of proof is a proof of absence. It's an argument that holds little water and repeating it does not diminish the fact. A confusion of how science works often has the creationist assigning a tiered hierarchy which they casually and incorrectly assign significance (i.e. 'validity) to in order to hack at the roots of some of the more problematic facts which turn up end their beliefs/arguments.

oh my goodness, did badger submit a post of substance????

"The introduction of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection 150 years ago gave rise to a scientific, cultural and ecumenical debates the likes of which had not been seen before. With the amassing of irrefutable evidence by many branches of the scientific community the debate within it has gradually subsided and the fields fields of zoology, biology, ecology, geology, genetics and a host of other scientific disciplines have concluded beyond reasonable doubt the validity of the theory. The dust has all but cleared and the war won except perhaps, where it matters most -the public arena."

oh, I see, nothing from Badger at all, just another propaganda post of "elephant hurling"

"Sadly at the beginning of the twenty first century, creationists still exert persuasive political clout on politicians, businesses, the judiciary, schools, and the citizenry that evolution is a flawed, crippled idea fueled by a wicked, secular agenda. They lobby fiercely for creationism and its bastard child intelligent design to be taught as credible alternatives to evolution in classroom science curricula."

Creationists has long since left off of the push to get creationism taught in public schools and ID'ers are not creationists, but it is not surprising that you would not know this.

"Creationist Argument #1: Evolution is a theory and only a theory. It is not a fact nor is it a scientific law."

This is not a creationist argument. Evolution is not "just a theory", it is an entire philosophy, a world view. That it is not a "fact" or "scientific law", is obvious. Dr. Stephen Jay Gould argued unpersuasively "evolution as fact and theory" but in so doing he used the deceptive and logically fawed tactic of equivocation. Evolution is only a fact if you define it as "change". Trouble is, this is not a valid definition for evolution as change doesn't explain molecules to man evolution, nor does it rule out creation, which also posits change. The issue isn't change, but change in which direction and that is the cruxed of the issue. If evolution is "single cell to biosphere" change, then evolution is not a fact or theory, much less scientific law. (sidenote: evolutionists love to poke fun at "naive" lay creationists who misuse the term "theory" as a shakey hypothesis, yet evolutionists themselves are sometimes guilty of using the term theory in this manner themselves. Under "arguments creationists should not use is the following: (“Theory” has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage; it is better to say that evolution is just a hypothesis or one model to explain the untestable past.)

"What *is* a theory? What *is* a scientific law? Are they mutually exclusive? What traits do they share? What separates the two?"

No, but the foundation upon which one discovers a scientific law are observations. And when it comes to molecules to man evolution, NO OBSERVATIONS ARE AVAILABLE. So strictly speaking, evolution is not a scientific law, nor a scientific theory. It is a world view or model of origins. As a world view it is inconsistant and self refuting.

Comments?

It should be noted, lest anyone feel that Badger submitted an orignal thought, that he failed to cite or give credit for the article he "borrowed" from the scientific american author Gary Stix:

www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm

Most people, when asked what they consider to be Charles Darwin’s legacy, would quickly say “evolution.” Indeed, evolution and Darwin are virtually synonymous, especially this year, as evolutionists worldwide are celebrating his 200th birthday. But what is not so commonly known is that there have been adverse parts of Darwin’s legacy that many of his followers have either denied or kept from public knowledge.

Ideas, it is said, have consequences. What people believe about their origins and the purpose and meaning of life affects their entire worldview. It molds how they view themselves . . . and others.

Darwin’s ideas concerning “molecules-to-man” evolution have left a significant negative legacy on society. For many secularists, his ideas were ammunition to eliminate any consideration of the supernatural. For example, in Darwin’s house (now a museum) in England, there is an exhibit which comments on our Creator:

“. . . [E]very living creature looked the way it did because God had designed it that way. Darwin’s theory made nonsense of all of this.”
The exhibit declares there is no God connected to why and how life exists. This idea dominates America’s science classrooms. God has been outlawed there. “Science” is now defined as “naturalism” (really atheism)—it’s the only explanation for the origin of life currently allowed. Any hint of the supernatural is not permitted.

The situation in public schools has only gotten worse in recent decades. Witness the recent Texas board of education ruling on the state’s science curriculum, largely dictating that evolution cannot be questioned.

If we continue to have generations of students going through a public education system that teaches them they are just animals and the result of natural processes (a Scientific American article stated, “We are all animals, descendants of a vast lineage of replicators sprung from primordial pond scum”1), we will continue to see a growing moral collapse in society.

The horrible school shooting in Finland in 2007 is a prime example. The killer stated: “I am prepared to fight and die for my cause, . . . I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection. . . . I am just an animal, a human, an individual, a dissident . . . . It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on tracks!”2

This student was only carrying out in practice what he had been taught concerning origins, as well as the lack of purpose and meaning he found in life. Herein lies Darwin’s terrible legacy, which has affected all modern cultures.

Consider the continuing problem of racism. Darwin wrote that within the human kind, some people groups were closer to their supposed ape-like ancestors than others. No wonder the late evolutionist Stephen J. Gould stated: “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”3

An increase in abortion has gone hand in hand with the growing acceptance of evolution. Over the years, some women have told us that people at abortion clinics told them that when they get rid of their “unwanted” baby, it’s okay because it’s just an animal. Some have been told that the baby as it develops in the womb retraces its evolutionary ancestry (e.g., saying that at a certain stage, they would just be getting rid of a “fetus” in its “reptile” stage).

We should not be shocked when we see students only becoming more consistent in carrying out evolutionary beliefs. After all, they are acting out what they have been taught they are—animals. Such things in the culture remind me of Judges 17:6: “In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

www.answersingenesis.org/artic...legacy