[karajorma]

It's a typical argument of the scientifically ignorant to claim that evolution is "just a theory" as if that is supposed to mean something.

The simple fact is that as Ford Prefect points out everything is just a theory. If you can't use the word true for evolution you can't use it for anything. 

[0rph3u5]

The word 'true' is a hard sell for anyone to use in conjunction with a theory. But the point is that no one can prove creationism nor evolution. Simply labeling either one 'true' is in its self an act of faith[In general terms]. I am not sure if you were being sarcastic though.

See, there's a difference between the Theory of Evolution not being provable due to the fact that theories aren't supposed to proven, and Creationism not being provable because it's complete bollocks it's based entirely on unsubstantiated conjecture.

well it is a matter of what you accept as proof or not:
names and dates in book which expresses the view on themselves of an ancient culture which wanted to belive that they are special (these are the words of my RE teacher at school!)
OR
measurements and thoughts of people who change their mind very often 'cause someone like them showed them they were "wrong"?

Sadly many people all around this world like things to be constant and safe although life/the universe has not constant and safe things to offer; that is why they make up things like "intellegent design" or creationism
and Science is and has always not been about finding something solid and safe! from the acient greek philosophers to modern day scientists everyone knew and knows he/she could be prooven wrong one day (although many never accepted to be wrong)

I guess the problem of creationism will live on until someone find a way to proove them otherwise in everyday life (like it was done when it was prooven that earth is not-exactly-a-globe-but-still-something-spherical [I need to be correct with this one!] instead of a plain thing you could fall off from)..
but since the indicators for evolution (I've never heard anyone scientifically debating on evolution using the word "proof") are so abstract things like the physiological analogies between long dead and recent animals/plants and molecular similarities and differences (matches/mismatches in the aminoacidsequences of some "old" enzymes or in the nucleotidsequence of the gens) of rencent animals/plants that ain't gonna happen

[IceFire]

Lets try and not have this thread go off the rails (not that it has but keep it civil).

Creationism shouldn't be looked on as a problem but I strongly object to people trying to get it taught in science class. We don't teach science in religion class and we shouldn't be teaching religion in science class. The two I see as being distinct and valuable for different reasons but not if you take either too seriously because thats when you get far too much conflict.

To be honest I think that the people most in arms about issues like these are the ones with the least amount of faith.

Indeed evolution is abstract and thats how its hard to explain to people and its probably best not to explain it in too much detail.  I think what we should be doing is teaching children about what scientific theory is and re-establish what theory actually means instead of "well its only a theory" misdirection that we commonly see.

[Woolie Wool]

http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/12/15/173228.shtml



The virus must be stopped.........

We're talking about a country that has a giant-ass cathedral right next to its main government building (St. Basil's Cathedral is near the Kremlin in Red Square). It is a very religious country. I am not surprised for a moment at this.