It's a theory, so as was said earlier, it isn't necessarily a true fact and isn't fact right now. However, it has (by far) the most evidence supporting it as a viable theory, and doesn't deal with things that science can't explain.

I do think it's worth pointing out, though, that the existence of evolution wouldn't disprove the existence of God or even creationism in general. Hypothetically speaking, a deity could have created things so that evolution exists. I'm not entirely certain what purpose that would serve, but that's largely irrelevant, I suppose. I'm just saying that it doesn't directly contradict religion in general.




________________

Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
Your awesome!!! - Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...

Actually, I regularly argue this point. There's definitally a "leap of faith" taken when one believes evolution to be true.
Mathmatically speaking, intelligent design is something like 10x more likely than evolution. The statistics for evolution occuring again are astronomical.
Darwin himself would no longer believe in evolution if he were alive. He had a time limit set for certain holes to be filled in and that timeline is long gone with the holes still gaping.
Another point: a much larger percentage of experts believe in intelligent design than is taught at schools. Although the experts don't know everything, their lack of faith in pure chance causing the world today shows how weak the theory actually is.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it is definitally more faith than fact. And now a days, religion has nothing to do with science except when science somehow manages to stumble on something that explains a "miracle" from the Bible or another religion. Evolution being a theory has to do with the fact that it has not yet been proven, not the powers of the Church.

________________
I am a breath of insanity in a world of chaos.

Me: Performing Random Acts of Klutziness for over 30 years.

Can you please do the "math" that allows intelligent design to be 10x as likely as evolution? (tho like Crenshinibon said, evolution and intelligent design can coincide quite well)

tho I must say, how does the church come into whether evolution is fact or faith. I don't quite understand the thought process.

Just entirely out of my own curiosity, any idea where I could look at these statistics and see how they were calculated? I'm a little curious as to what numbers they reduced incredibly abstract concepts to, and especially how exactly you find the probability that everything was intentionally created. EDIT: Funkmu beat me to it, but I still want to know.

Just for the record- I'm not saying they're off or that I don't believe them, but it's such a bizarre premise that I'd like to see how it was done.

________________

Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
Your awesome!!! - Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...

Gravity is technically a 'theory' too, but no one goes around saying that doesn't exist. Anyone who says evolution requires a leap of faith because it's a 'theory' obviously doesn't know enough about scientific theories.

See, a 'theory' is the explanation/interpretation of existing facts. For evolution to be a 'theory' means that there are enough facts supporting it, and not enough evidence to disprove it, that it is generally accepted by the people who have done enough research to know best.

Therefore, you can't argue that evolution is based on faith because it's 'only a theory'. That's an extremely uneducated, and incorrect, opinion.

I don't think you get it...
With evolution and science, we aren't exactly chasing the "truth" as there is no "truth" (imo), we are explaining things as they are, best we can. Yes there are holes in theories, but damnit it sure is a whole lot more useful than simply throwing up your hands and saying "our invisible friend did it! *wink* *nudge*" At least with a theory we can use it to understand and make use of things better.

And regarding this faith thing you want to throw around, I want to quote a guy, from the internet yes a guy with a blog... He said it well.


from here: http://www.theinformationparadox.com/2008/05/reasonable-exp ectation-vs-faith.html

So no, I don't think evolution is a faith... I think it's a pretty damn good theoretical model of the development of the species over time... or something like that, I am not in a very fluently arguing mood... hot and sticky bleh I need a shower.

For the math, i believe the name your looking for is Roger Penrose, atleast i think that is his name. Should be one of the close buddies to Stephen Hawking. He was one of the more famous guys working on the math behind it.

________________
"Let's put a smile on that face."

I think you are mistaking something.
Evolution, just like gravity is generally accepted to be a fact in the scientific community. What is debatable is whether or not humans evolved from apes.

Before you say something (or type) that you are unsure of, research it a bit.
Cells are not the smallest "components" to living things. Cells have organelles.
http://www.biomedicalphysics.org/PhysCircCourse/images/cell% 20structure.jpg
I do understand the point about theories you are trying to make but your examples are flawed.

________________

Idk I looked him up on wiki then i searched "Penrose on intelligent design" on google, not much came up that had factual basis. He seems just like a highly mathematically minded physicist to me.

That wikipedia article is not trying to say that a fact is the same as a theory. You should read it:
"The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, from the "theory of evolution", namely the current scientific explanation of how those changes came about."

Evolution can be interpreted both as a fact and a theory.
Scientists have already observed changes in populations of organisms over time. That is a fact (of evolution).
The current scientific explanation of how those changes came about is still a theory.
Get the difference? I hope so...
Also true wikipedia is not a source that anyone should use for scientific journals, however there is nothing wrong with using it as a reference. Anyone who isn't completely retarded will be able to tell if a page has been tampered with. Just use the links in the sources at the bottom of the page. Those are the actual sources from scientific papers, textbooks and journals.
Don't expect anyone from a forum to write you an essay with proper sources... Jeez

Quoted for emphasis.

________________

Oh? But I learned a lot of stuff from my elementary text books. It should not be underestimated due to it's simpliciy~


Exactly. Evolution is a fact. The theories are mostly for the processes of evolution, like natural selection, genetic drift, etc.

Go to lab and you can see evolution working in a petri dish. Ask an AIDS patient why they have to change their meds after a while...

(ack, I was going to quote Digital-Eon's post too >.< beat me to it)

dont usually do this often because serious intellectual debate and philosophy has no business being taken serious on a forum, but the BS flag is thrown down on this comment. Text book example of confusion between adaptation and evolution. Hopefully most people trying to discuss this have actually read Darwin's work and atleast one intelligent design analysis, most people are way off on what they are trying to convey because of random google'ing of info to prove a specific point which requires the whole. and to funkmu1, ill try to find it in my physics work, the professor actually spent an hour and 30 to try and explain it to us. but not going to lie, it was above and beyond my ability.

________________
"Let's put a smile on that face."

I actually have read his works... quite boring actually.

What's BS? Please explain. (Well about adaptation and evolution... isn't adaptation a process of evolution? Also, heh, I admit, I don't 100% understand it, but I actually quoted, not word for word, that one from a bio prof~).

erg, ill try to PM the stuff on viral mutations and such, kinda will take us off the original post topic because of the debate between mutations and its proof/disproof of either theory.

________________
"Let's put a smile on that face."

Sigh. Adaptation is a characteristic of an organism that has been favored by natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which species adapt to their environment. Natural selection leads to evolutionary change when individuals with certain characteristics have a greater survival or reproductive rate than other individuals in a population and pass on these inheritable genetic characteristics to their offspring.
That is the theory in any case.
It is all very closely related.

________________