And our DNA is 98% identical to a chimpanzee's.

:blush: Thankee.

alphageek31337 had me nodding in agreement more than once. . . I wanted to mention something about the transitional species, but I couldn't find the right words. So thanks, Alph, for saying what I wanted to.

Space is not nothingness… it is a description of the geometry of the universe. The universe may indeed be finite, and therefore space is finite as well. Sorry, off topic.

On another note, I am not sure that I understand the distinction between presenting something as “fact” and presenting something as “theory” (I’m focusing on the dissemination of ideas in a classroom at this point). I would think that students should be encouraged to test everything that is taught to them. As long as students realize that the only thing human beings can do is provide descriptions of reality, is there really any harm in teaching anything?

Evolution is theory presented as theory because it is constantly being tested, creationism is presented as fact because it is an assertion based on no testing of any sort.

In science, there are no facts. No theory is certain enough to be a "fact" in the philosophical sense. The closest thing in science to a literal fact is what science calls "data", but any step in the collection and/or interpretation of the data is enough to strip it of literal facthood.

Therefore, whenever the word fact is used (if it is) in science, it is shorthand for "we're pretty damn sure".

But creationism is being tested by those who believe in it. As people assimilate more information, they will incorporate this into what they believe to be facts. Creationism, though, is a very simple theory and isn’t dependent upon many observations (at the simplest level, only one observation is needed: people exist). The point is that I can test this. The presentation of the theory is independent of this. The distinction is subtle, but what I am trying to get at is that it is not the presenter’s (be that the teacher, school, government, etc.) responsibility to “classify” arguments into “facts” and “theory”; therefore, I tend not to see the teaching of creationism as crossing the barrier of church / state. Creationism isn’t a “religious” theory; it is a description of reality, like any other, though relatively simple. Perhaps it is better to leave the evaluation of the theories up to the students (hopefully with some guidance from their parents).

"It was magic" is not a scientific theory. It is a religious assertion. It belongs in a comparative religions class, not a science class.

Under that definition, a fact is a theory that has reached some arbitrary level of acceptance. I'm not saying this is incorrect, I'm just using it to illustrate a point; most everyone treats the definition of “fact” as an absolute. However, most people also agree that there are various degrees to certainty, especially with reasonably complicated issues. The complication (for me) comes in when the two are mixed. No description of reality can be presented as an absolute fact (mathematics doesn’t count, it is a language, not a description of reality).

No, it isn't. You don't test the Word of God(tm). By definition it should exist regardless of what we determine by study.

Actually, that statement is a theory. Taken literally, it might be rephrased as “this event had no cause”. I always liked that one, because I have heard the argument many times that such a statement does not qualify as a theory because it is fundamentally not testable (since it ignores causality, which all theories rely on). However, I would point out that the statement *is* testable; give that, in essence, one is simply trying to determine if causality is required. If one is to observe other non-causal events, then one might conclude that such events do happen, and therefore “magic” does exist. Most people don’t do this, though we observe many non-causal events every day (I mean in the strict sense that the actions that led to the state of the event were not observed by us). Usually, we possess other descriptions of reality that would lead us to believe that the event was indeed caused by something else (though we didn’t observe it). However, one that did not have such a background may indeed believe that the event was caused by “magic”.

That made way more sense in my head then it does on paper.

B

Bingo. There’s the distinction I was looking for. The idea that something should not be tested is religion; it is not the statement in itself that is “religious.” That’s where the line is crossed. Theories are not religion; believing that one possesses “facts” is.

In one or more of these evolution debates I've declared myself amongs the intelligent designers ... I don't see why the scientific and the religious views can't co-exist. it's only when one requires the exclusion of the other that we get into these pages-long debates that go nowhere.

Actually, they aren't debates, since rarely does anyone make a change of opinion based upon the information presented. It's opinion-spouting, sometimes backed by facts, sometimes by sheer passion.

And there are indeed lots of Christians who take an ever-so-slightly less literal interpretation of Genesis. They might even be considered to be an (even more) silent majority of the silent majority.

It has never been my assertion that creationism is wrong, only that it isn't science. The only real debate as to creationism is which creationism is the right one?

It's hard to prove something has no evidence indicating which deity is responsible...

You have no idea how many posts I have deleted just for that very exact reason. There's things that are so very clear in your head, and then when you try to enunciate them, they all of a sudden seem muddled up.

However, you did make plenty of sense to me. At least, if you meant something along the lines of what I tell my son: "If there's absolutely no reasonable explanation for it, it must be magic." To which he asked, "but, what IS magic? I told him, "Science we haven't figured out yet."

Queen of simplification? y/n?