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

It does appear that uncomfortable questions can only evoke ad hominem responses from you. If that’s the best that you can do, just admit it and do us all the favor of not posting your tripe.

I asked several pointed questions, none of which you care to address. Addressing them would mean that you have to admit that your only real concern about McCain’s VP pick is over fiscal concerns and not social ones. You would have to admit that it has nothing to do with atheists and atheim and everything to do with shilling for the Democratic party.

Lightly associating a candidate with the RR and not adequately showing that her position on religion is a political one rather than merely a personal one is dishonest. One violates the Constition of the U.S. and the other does not.

It looks like some of you are certainly suffering from a bad case of foot-in-mouth.

If a politician is not fit to run the country because he is a believer in fairy tales or he is dishonest enough to lie about believing in fairy tales, then your favorite pick for the office is not fit to be a president for one reason or the other.

?When is AA going to complain about taxpayer dollars being used for a closing prayer using the name of Jesus??

This is a straw man argument. Both the Democratic and Republican conventions are paid for by their parties? respective national committees so, except perhaps for security, taxpayer dollars aren?t involved. When taxpayer dollars ARE involved, AA has a long history of opposition to this sort of thing regardless of the party affiliation of the offender.

?Why can Dems pray in the name of Jesus but Repubs can’t…??

Um? who?s trying to stop them? Or differentiate between the prayers of either group? I don?t think it?s the policy of AA to tell any individual or group that they can or can?t pray? Again, unless they are doing it as representatives of the government (in which case they would be violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution) there is no problem. Political parties, believe it or not, are NOT part of the government.

There is some money getting paid out to put these events on, but I’d be willing to bet that the economic stimulus for Denver hosting the DNC probably more than paid for its impact through additional tax revenue. All those companies that sold products and services to the travelers that came in for the convention paid taxes to the govt.

What is harder to stomach is that they pandered to religion and alienated some of their base. The unusual parallel here is that AA seems to doing the same: They allow, and seem to actually invite attacks on conservative atheists. I can’t imagine how others can miss my discomfort for the obvious bias for one political party over another – going even so far as childish name calling… see the names I have been called and the prevalant “McBush and FembBush.”

While the Democrats seem to be doing their best to alienate you, you are doing your best to alienate us. Sauce for the goose, and all that.