| It would appear that the problem concerning evolution being a theory is that scientists disagree on particulars: What explains spurts in development, the exponential acceleration of evolution, parallel species... the thing is, while these are being argued out (it IS still a theory), none of them are any cause for the entire concept to be thrown out (it is NOT a hypothesis). What creationism lacks, and evolution has, is the scientific method - a system to prove or disprove ideas through repeatable experiments.
What makes a straight linear path of progressive species difficult to find out is that this earth changes quite a bit, creating different situations all over that need to be reasoned out. Once a possible answer as to what happened when, where and why has been posited, then it can be tested and retested and modified to fit. Or thrown out, if it fails to fit at all. Religion has had to do this too, but with the sincere devotion to faith, it's been quite difficult in getting it to move hardly at all. When faced with dinosaur bones, they made an answer: "this doesn't exist." When that didn't fly, they made another one; "God must've fucked up a couple times before we came about." Ahh. That worked.
But it can't be tested. That's the point.
. . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. |