It looks as if you are confusing âtheoryâ with âhypothesisâ here. As I illustrated before, they are not synonymous. Evolution is called a fact because there is no doubt that it happened, given the mass of confirmatory evidence. And this evidence is not going anywhere. As I said, science does not share the same standard of proof as metaphysics or mathematics because it cannot.
How did you conclude that? A 6000-year old universe is about the most implausible thing imaginable. The whole of science would need to be overturned and thrown away for this to happen, and supernatural entities would need to be invoked.
No, they would not say it was shaky. Itâs true that we are still working out the mechanisms of how it occurs, but such is the progressive nature of science. No one in science doubts that it happens and has been happening for several billion years.
I agree. If creationists want anyone to listen to them they should do some hard science to back up their claims. I wouldnât say they force scientists to do anything, however, as their lack of objective method removes any credibility in their ideas. All I see creationists doing is misrepresenting evolution, being selective with data, interpreting things as they wish without considering alternatives, creating false dilemmas and so on. Science will not take them seriously until they actually produce some proper scientific research into the matter, and I have yet to see any.