I figured I would put my two cents into this one.

Of course evolution is a theory, just as is any other scientific discourse or theological discourse or otherwise. Christianity is, by an large, a theory and a theoretical framework of hypothesis and secondary hypothesis. The same goes for anything in physics like relativity or mathematics (which is not a science in the classical empirical sense, neither is theoretical physics for that matter - Einstein was a philosopher, or a natural philosopher in the classical sense, rather than a modern scientist).

However, what the original poster is attempting to do, and what the debate between creationism and evolution is marked by is simple: a demarcation theory or assumption between science and pseudoscience. This is actually a problem in the philosophy of science, and it has to do with seeking a demarcation criteria between what is scientific and what is pseudo scientific.  The classical or common line of argument is that evolution is a scientific theory, while creationism is a pseudoscientific one. However, I would like to warn against this and perhaps look at some philosophers like Feyerabend. It is more difficult than one think to demarcate between scientific theories and pseudoscientific theory, Kuhn proved as much. Lakatos attempted to demarcate between progressive and degenerative research programs, but this has its problems as well.

Generally, the demarcation between science and pseudoscience is a problem that has not been solved yet in philosophy. Without solving such a problem this debate will never get beyond superficial and rhetorical argumentation.

End of thread.

Note: ^Vampan, you make a lot of errors in your post that have to do with a confusion about metaphysics. You are begging questions in a way that makes them illogical given a specific metaphysical framework, like say 'god'. Asking 'who created god' is an illogical proposition that would beg an illogical answer because you are confusing two levels of metaphysics and epistemology. A Human being can beg such a question, granted, because causality and origin are frameworks of human cognition. Experience, then, must be structured in such a way. 'God' however, is a proposition that is beyond the bounds of human experience, and thus beyond the bounds of the 'logical' and perceptional rules given by human cognitive structures. But affirming its negation, i.e. NO God, is affirming the same type of metaphysics as the former. In this way, atheists are doing the same thing as deists or theologians - however atheists tend to confuse their metaphysics and, thus, believe their proposition 'no god' or the negation of god is logically sound or a proposition consequence to inductive logic and empirical phenomena (induction from observation is an impossibility by the way).

Do not think your are above theologians, nor think that your simply comments are enough to prove some sort of 'infinite regression' making the proposition of God's existence false. You've done no such thing, all you've done is confused your metaphysics and, thus, begged the affirmation of propositions that are beyond the bounds of logic structures.

Evolution is funny.

While it tries to explain how life could form, it fails to explain why anything exists at all.

It doesn't make sense that space and matter even exist. Big bang theory doesn't explain why nothing exploded. It just says that something is and that it did. M-theory says logical membranes in other dimensions are rubbing together. People believe that over God?

Is that a bowl of Soviet soup in your avvy?

No, he's absolutely right. Maybe he's a misguided fool for being a commie (or at least implying he is one), but he's absolutely right about the philosophy of science. To add to what he said, Hume illustrated that no matter what theory you propose, an unlimited number of alternative theories can be proposed that are equally justifiable. If you say that the sun will rise, the theory that the sun will rise except for tomorrow is equally justified on the facts. This is called the problem of undetermination. Second, we can't argue that science ever gets anything right, because we do not have independent access to reality to test that scientific models actually match with reality. They may make predictions, but that doesn't mean they ever can accurately describe them. Third, as he said about Kuhn, Kuhn illustrated that if there is any method of science it's "anything goes." So why science should be granted a monopoly over truth is unfair, because the God model is equally justified.

All in all, this is why I'm in agreement with the skeptics.

Are we talking about Darwinism or evolution?

Darwin didn't know what chromosones were

So his "theory" is hogwash

@Econ
"Comintern, you are just plain funny. I'm not in the same league as you? You are taking, excuse me, what philospohy? You are a very funny man, you should revert to stand-up. Non-academic sources such as the National Academy of Science, or NASA? nice one haha."

Let's see some actual stats: it i known that philosophy students have the third highest IQs after only theoretical physics and mathematics (they beat every engineering, social science and other liberal arts and physical sciences).  They score the 4th highest of any major on GRE exams. (behind only again, physics, math and i think it was material engineering)

Here is a sample of what we do, amongst many things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_logic (some actually think this is mathematics, but instead it is philosophy. Yes, philosophy created the basis for calculus....)

You have no idea what philosophy is and of course, do not realize its immense difficulty. And let's look at some philosophers shall we, and you can claim whether or not what they do is difficult:

Gottlob Frege
Bertrand Russel
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Karl Popper
Thomas Kuhn
Imre Lakatos
Paul Feyerabend
Hilary Putnam
Quine

These thinkers may have relevance in this debate which is why I chose them. You can do a little search on any of these thinkers and then come back here and make fun of philosophy.

You're an ignorant kid. And yes you are simply out of your league in this debate, you have made little effort to make coherent logical argumentation and, moreover, you insult one of the most difficult post-secondary disciplines because you have an ill-conceived presumption based on nonsense or, perhaps, the very qualities of social indoctrination relevant to science that Feyerabend noted was extremely dangerous.

So please, once you read some stuff in the philosophy of science, come back and talk to me. Until then, just try and absorb what I am saying.

Comintern, are you a polylogist, by chance?

Also Justinian, I am surprised at you. Though you have indicated your skepticism before, I thought we went over the issue of absolute uncertainty and why it is an impossible standard of knowledge. You should get used to being in the company of Marxists for as long as you adhere to skepticism. The ability to deny man's ability to trust his own judgments, and rationally understand reality from an epistemologically sound approach, renders him a more docile and receptive pawn to Party ideology.

the bible picked an chose what was put into it.  many gospels were simply left out because they werent "approved."  they found the gospels of judas and they give a totally different story than the version we have.  evo theory changes because we learn new things and add to it, we do not simply pick and choose which "right" things we want in there.  you can believe in some omnipresent spirit that created anything and everything but i choose to believe that people got together and wrote a pretty little story to control other people after starting out as ooze and working our way up to the point when we could write silly stories about females being spare ribs and such

> The Beachwood Year wrote:

> I hold these truths to be self evident:
1. Evolution is in no way science since it cannot be tested or experimented with.
2. I.D. is likewise not science because it too cannot be tested or experimented with.

That is not to say that neither can be studied or proven, it simply says that they are not science.

Bullshit.  Evolution can be tested on microcosm levels.

Check the peppered moth.  Perfect example:

The peppered moth was a white moth in Britain.  It would survive because its white color would blend into the landscape, allowing it to hide from predators.  An uncommon, slight mutation from the white peppered moth was a black version, but it was easily killed off because it was so easily detectable.

Following the Industrial Revolution, the landscape became more polluted.  The landscape darkened.  Suddenly, the white peppered moth died out, replaced by the black peppered moth, since the black color is what now blended into the landscape.

Once pollution regulations were put in place, it reverted, and the white moth came back.

That's how you test it: put animals in an environment in which a common, yet unsuccessful, mutation would otherwise thrive.

They believe it in the absense of any comparable alternative. It is the most rational theory, supporting which MUCH evidence exists. We find the preserved bones and fossils of creatures long extinct. We do NOT find the bones and fossils of creatures alive now from millions of years ago (or even just millenia). A lot of the discussion here is just plain ignorance from kids who've never had a high school science education. You make me sad. But I don't post here much because idiots post things like:

>>to believe in a god/supreme creator you can't believe in evolution....they contradict each other<<

Which is just silly. You're proposing that a god could not direct the course of his creation to such an extent (on a molecular level) that the life he desired would come to exist.

I feel bad for you, Comintern. You come in here all making sense and posting coherent and informed posts only to be greeted by the regular angry 15 year old trolls.

If you want to play with a real idea, consider how free will could be real without a god, if we're all just chemicals, biology and physics

The theory of evolution is just a theory. But then, so is the theory of gravity....