Coming back after a few das...

Thanks for offering yourself to experiment, LH, but I don't experiment on humans :)

I come back to theories and what often is not understood in Mudcat discussions, not only by Little Hawk.

There is no theory of evolution, only for historical reasons that term has been preserved since Darwin's time. After 150 years of observation and experiment, evolution is now a fact. Biology only makes sense when looked at with this knowledge. You can always find a PhD who still disagrees same as you can find still one (2?) professors who do not agree that there is global warming (as a fact, not looking at the reasons why) and think warming could be a measuring artifact. But for all others, these are facts.

The interpretation of facts that's what theories are for and for predicting what happens under certain circumstances. There are many different theories of evolution (puntuated equilibrium being one) that do not at all agree with each other. Some are theories only about a small part of evolution, others are broader theories. All of them are most likely wrong in at least one detail. The theories about evolution will be very different 100 years from now. However, they will still try to explain the fact of evolution.

Take planetary motion and gravity as an example. We now consider it as a fact (and not only as a possible theory) that the planets including Earth orbit the sun. This is not a theory but a fact. How that goes, there have been many theories some of which are now only interesting for historians of science.

There has been the original theory by Newton. His theory didn't lead to stable orbits, so he postulated that God interfered from time to time to push a planet back into the correct orbit.

Then there was what we now learn at school as the Newtonian theory though it has never been formulated by him. Laplace's Mécanique céleste improved Newton's math and led to the prediction of stable orbits. God's push was no longer needed. Laplace quipped to Napoleon about God as the "unnecessary hypothesis".

Then there was Einstein who for the first time could what the old theories could not, namely explain the orbit of Mercury. One even could say that Einstein got rid of gravity (some people still believe in it, BTW) and replaced it by the idea that 4-D space-time is curved in the neighbourhood of (large) masses. A completely different theory but the facts (planets orbiting the sun) did not change. The quick acceptance of Einstein's theorie(s) came from this theory making the same predictions as the improved Newtonian for the outer planets but being able to describe Mercury's orbit much better.

Some have tried to explain what gravity is (and not just accept it as given by Newton) and have postulated an exchange of gravitons...

If we'd discover masses that do not curve space-time, we'd need a new theory but it still would have to predict the known facts of the solar system.

The theories in science always come in plural and not in singular. They change and no single theory of today will be taught in 100 years as true. Einstein's theory is the best candidate for this prediction being wrong, BTW. But whatever the improved theories say, if they do not predict/describe the known facts they will not be accepted.

Evolution, to come back to it, is among all biologists with the odd (Christian fringe) exception looked at as a fact. The exact mechanisms are not known yet known in detail though there are some really good guesses. There is no demand or need to "believe" one particular of these many theories. Scientific theories are not there to be believed but to be tested rigorously in the hope they are wrong. For we learn more from being wrong. But all these theories start with evolution as a fact.

Creation Science or Intelligent Design have never even tried to be scientific theories. They make no testable predictions and only prey on those parts of evolution not yet fully understood. These two "theories" (as the authors admit in private communications with people they think are on their side) start with the assumption that the relevants parts of the Bible are literally true. The believers only try to find evidence for this idea, and most of the evidence is negative like "science can not yet fully explain...". That's the futile "God of the gaps" approach that is always on a permanent retreat.

Outside of North America (perhaps only USA) and the Islamic World which is far more literally minded when it comes to the stories in the Koran, only a tiny fringe still doubts evolution.

BTW, one last argument: The fact of evolution is neither a reason for nor against God, except in the minds of the religious fringe. One could easily consider evolution being God's way how to make the Earth (and perhaps many other rocks orbiting stars) seething with life. One particular literalist detail of religious belief, however, is just nonsense. But it may take some more time until that finds acceptance in the USA.

Wolfgang