In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact”–part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is “only” a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can’t even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): “Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science–that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.”

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, “fact” doesn’t mean “absolute certainty”; there ain’t no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory–natural selection–to explain the mechanism of evolution.

(above quote can be found on TalkOrigins.org, which is also linked on the right)

Anyone who thinks “god did it” is science is either too ignorant to be President, or too dishonest (and is lying to get votes).

I agree. Obama qualifies for one or the other. So, now we have candidates on both sides with the same problem.

I would still like an explanation about what a VP can actually DO about it. We’ve had a Republican-run congress and president for six years and a Republican president for the remaining two. You would think that this would have been an accomplishment they would have liked to make in all of that time, but they haven’t.

The supreme court has routinely knocked these things down. They will continue to. What should come as no surprise is that the justices that presidents choose often surprise the presidents by ruling for the constitution rather than merely ruling as the conservative or liberal judge the president thought he appointed.

I submit that a VP selection that has no actual power to enact any legislation to put IDiocy in our schools is still NOT news to atheists. It’s a thin veil to hide the fact that what you really don’t like are fiscal conservatives (and she has a track record that shows that she is VERY good at cutting costs – including her own salary).

I just don’t see her casting the tie-breaking vote that puts IDiocy in school (or it surviving a judicial review if it did). I do see her potential for casting a tie-breaker in fiscal matters. Is that what really has you dems quaking in your boots?

What does this have to do with atheists or atheism? I don’t see any of you blasting Obama for being “too ignorant” or “too dishonest,” whichever the case may be.

When is AA going to complain about taxpayer dollars being used for a closing prayer using the name of Jesus? Why can Dems pray in the name of Jesus but Repubs can’t…?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQyXd33Y1KU&eurl=http://pastorkip.blogspot.com/2008/08/pastor-joel-hunter-prayer-democratic.html

Since she is pro-drilling for oil, it won’t be too long before the USA finally discovers that the origins of life is actually from abiotic oil. Oh, sure, “God-done-it” will be her explanation for everything, but oil is good for the economy. We’ve always been purchasing oil from other countries, and it’s about damn time we start producing our own oil on a large scale. Oil and nuclear, the two technologies that are so far proven, and then we can have business capitalism take care of the energy switch with a strengthened economy.

http://irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com/2008/08/abiotic-oil-and-origins-of-life-on.html