In all the discussions (here and elsewhere - I live in Kansas so you
know some of what has happened here this year) I have yet to hear any
self-proclaimed "creation scientists" provide one testable hypothesis
derived directly from creationist philosophy. Most of the heat and
smoke is involved in attacking science or shoring science up, but no one
is approaching the ultimate argument for ANY scientific change and that
is quite simply "It better (or more thoroughly) explains or predicts
phenomena than do existing theories." Who gives a rat's rizooty about
theoretical disagreements among scientists if it is still the most
accurately predictive game in town. \
Speaking of theories; a lot of talk has been about evolution being ONLY
a theory and not a law. Am I mistaken in my notion that laws and
theories address things in fundamentally different lights. A law just
says "this happens" whereas a theory makes some attempt to provide
explanation or causation. e.g. a LAW of fluids would say that they run
downhill. Theories of fluids would begin to propose underlying
causation. Almost every single student in my high school and junior
college classes believe that a law is a theory that has been adequately
proven (sort of a promotion in the philosophical world). I am one of
few people Ihave ever heard express this attitude and I know this group
is not one to be shy about telling me I'm full of it, soo..........am I?