I got that, that's why I wrote this earlier: If you would like to point me in the direction of any misleading sources of information which have any actual application in the real world, let me know.

Notice your little qualifying statement there. Its ok as long as it doesn't have any application in the real world?


Why don't you give me an example of what you mean.


What I mean is this. Dinosaur bones found with soft tissue. (and yes I know this doesn't mean the tissue was actually soft)

When the discovery was made it was picked up by Creationists as a proof that the timeline in Evolution was wrong.


Question:

Did the science community not pursue the extended research on the idea that Dino's might not be as old as we think they are, because it was pointless? Or because it might bolster the Creationists argument?

See Creationists like to poke holes in the macro evolution theory, and ironically so do Scientists according to the definition of science. So I wonder if Scientists in this field refrain from doing things that might bolster the creationists argument.

In which case I would suggest that the agenda has effected the integrity of the field.

Raptor, you are committing a slight error in context. See, if we are talking scientifically, then we cannot talk about facts, or proven facts. Science does not allow that. We can talk about facts, but as soon as we do, we have stepped out of the field of science.

I didn't say that it was okay. I thought I made it clear (or at least I intended to;) that I don't condone misleading people. But when the only source of the erroneous material is a two-bit television show that isn't going to attract much attention at all, much less for educational purposes, then I'm not going to worry about it. Again, like I said earlier, any myths that are propagated through these shows can be dispelled by just glancing at almost any other scientific publication (whether directed at a scientific or general audience). I don't see where the problem is.

I gave an example before. If universities were leading their students to believe that the evolutionary theory is fact, then that'd be problem.



I wouldn't be able to tell you what thoughts crossed the minds of the scientists working on the find, the discovery of fossilized soft tissue lends no credit to the idea that the dinosaur were young. As I recall a paper was already published documenting the mechanism by which the tissue was fossilized. It was picked up by Creationists due to fallacious reasoning. They thought "Soft tissue --> Undecayed --> Unfossilized --> Young". Truth of the matter is, that's false, it was fossilized, it was old.



That statement only holds true for entire theories being conceived as fact. That's not what I'm referring to. I can avoid using the word "fact" if it makes you feel any better, but it's an indisputable truth that all human males have an XY sex chromosome pair. What ever your choice of words, there are truths. These are what I'm referring to.

No, I think we are now talking the same language.

I don't know what you're trying to say. Do you mean that you don't believe that there are facts?

(talking about so-called Xstians that have decided to live in an un-Christlike manner)


TRUE THAT!

Anyways, try to live in a Christlike manner even if that means changing your lifestyle. Maybe quit your job if you work for a company that isn't helping to spread Christ love.

Why are you insulting creationists? They can't be too stupid to understand that there have been many documented cases of soft-tissue fossilization.

Thank you. Its not ok for anyone to mislead people. But I think especially it is wrong for science to pretend something is scientific when its fantasy. (And I'm not talking about evolution)






See this is what bugs me about the dismissal. It should and does concern you when NOVA is putting out this information with the financial backing of the National Science Foundation and the support of the AAAS. That is most certainly NOT a two bit tv show and not only that its used in classrooms across the country.





I mean this is the part of the argument that I don't understand. Why is it when Creationists give out misinformation it needs to be corrected. Can't the same argument be made that just by glancing at any scientific publication (whether directed at a scientific or general audience) a Creationist or ID error can be dispelled? Why the uproar then? Why is Religion then being dragged into the evolutionary field of science?

Its a double standard of concern.


See this is also important because if the general public DOES see that scientists will loudly protest misinformation doesn't that lend itself to people thinking that they do this across the board?

True,

I watched some of the documentary, Evolution: What about God?. I am not sure of what your point in this is?

To quote the program synopsis:


Source

Why is it included? Ask the program developers, I can venture a guess for you. If you watch the documentary, its clearly not against religion. Its actually very very neutral. In fact, its a rather interesting documentary between the debate of evolution or creation. Also, it seems to iterate the point there is no conflict between biological evolution and religion. So your point of "pushing an agenda" once again becomes pretty damn mute.


Anyway, I am done on this thread true. Obviously you are a victim of your own question, "Are you a hypocirite when it comes to skepticism"(btw you spelled hypocrite wrong in your thread title). Its also obvious to any third party readers you are not interested in talking about skepticism or skepticism of the presentation of evolutionary theory. If at some point in the future you wish to post these specific aspects, feel free to PM me and I'll gladly come back. However, I am going assume you will continue to derail and run your own potentially great thread up the backside of Darwin.

By the way,


I think that is about the closest you have come to posting what "specific" aspects of evolutionary theory are being presented incorrectly.

I'll throw in my 2 cents. There are more eyewitness accounts to back Aliens then god any day. Skeptics say eyewitnesses aren't proof. bull. Eyewitnesses send people to prison eveyday. Considered proof under law. I'm no big fan of juducial law as it I know first hand, it's pure bull. Skeptics that speak without learning are arrogant a******s. Period.

Fallacious reasoning (false dilemma), human criminals are known to certainly exist, aliens or God are not (ie, may or may not). Proof under the law is not the same thing as scientific proof, in so much as anything is ever *proven* as regards science.



Also fallacious, subjective Ad Hominem (attacking the person not the argument).


In departing this thread, if you're looking for absolute, cast in stone, unwaivering *truth* don't knock on the door of science. Every scientific theory is potentially falsifiable, changable as more and more is learned. If this aspect of science somehow bothers you, renders you skeptical of everything science has accomplished in our world...so be it.

The term is moot by the way and you are using it incorrectly.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot

Um I twice posted aspects of the evolutionary theory were presented incorrectly. But you ignored them each time. You still have. Probably because they were out of your league. I took them off the site that Shaftsbury posted with the information criticizing the film.


Religion and science are two different things. The fact that science is addressing religion should indicate to you that it has taken on an agenda of stopping creationism in their tracks. Why is that? I don't think I've seen another science actively go after a mythology before? It should not concern science what people believe. And yet as the documentary shows the world of Evolution is very concerned with what people are willing to believe. And this is why it, in my opinion is going to be the "religion" of the future. They are drawing evolution into Religion.

What other science theory out there has gone to these lengths to try to salve the acceptance of a theory. IF lay persons say they don't accept Gravity because they think God made the world just have its own system, you would think they are foolish but you wouldn't actively try to convince them that there is a happy middle ground to accept it without giving up their God theory?

I am not a hypocrite because you don't understand my point. In fact I think you are a hypocrite because for you, Evolutionary science is a sacred cow that should not be looked at in scrutiny. You have blinders on and have gotten angry and childish when I have pressed my point. I'm not obsessed with evolution. Its just a very clear example of the SACRED COW how people will get angry and behave in very ridiculous ways just because someone dared to question their precious baby. I stated in the first page what was going to happen and you read it and still couldn't help yourself from doing it. Neither could others until they realized I was right about the reaction and sent me PMs apologizing and stopped participating.


The fact is that the theory of evolution is now being called a FACT because of the Creationists resistance to accept the theory. So right there we see a change in the language normally used because of the Creationists. Science usually would use the term theory just because that's scientific language. Using "FACT" is a clear example that something has changed.



We see a push. We see these things. So denying them is very silly? Why deny so stridently what is right in front of you?

So far the excuses have been


They aren't real scientists

Ok they ARE real scientists but they are rogue scientists

Ok they are ARE RESPECTED scientists but its just some off silly tv show

Ok the TV show gets backing from the National Science Foundation and the AAAS but they posted a disclaimer

Ok They posted a disclaimer after complaints were made but so what any casual glance at a magazine will show they are wrong


etc etc etc

But when a Creationist does the same kind of thing they are "misinforming the public about evolution and must be stopped"

Its a double standard. Flat out. And I don't have an issue with science. I have an issue with science changing into not science because they have an agenda to stop the Creationists. It worries me especially because we have a separation in this country between Church and State, not between Science and State. And if Science begins to blurr that line and more and more Evolutionists start acting like Dawkins and pushing an agenda (Not saying they are now but if they DO) then down the line the way people are allowed to believe things is going to be dictated to them by the government. And that just strikes me as weird.

It just never made any sense to me why science is so threatened by Creationists.

In my opinion Science doesn't feel threatened by creationism ,the only thing that is threatened by it is truth but fortunately it is only the American "fundies " that push it ,over here in Europe we pay little attention to it ,we are not so gullible.


fullywired

2¢ is about right.

True THOSE

Harte

Well, I'm going to post these again, just in case y'all missed it. If I don't get any responses I will then assume that we are all in agreement on these four and move on the next 4.


WHAT SCIENCE IS NOT:

Where's the double standard? Some scientists may correct false information given out by creationists, some may correct all false information, some may not do either. Just because two individuals who work in the field of science have different tendencies does not mean that there is a double standard among "science". It's not a single entity!

OH please. Its like you can't even for a second pause to look at the reality of what's happening. What I see is that scientists will always act as though Science is the pinnacle of fair play when its just comprised of people and corruption like everything else.

I saw this on a site it was headed "characteristics of a critical thinker " do you think it also applies to sceptics ??








clipped from: www.studygs.net

* They are honest with themselves
* They resist manipulation
* They overcome confusion
* They ask questions
* They base judgments on evidence
* They look for connections between subjects
* They are intellectually independent

Okay, you tell me what's happening. Tell me what's wrong with the last post I made.

I think in all fairness it may be proper to state What Science IS aswell:



This basic outline is from HighSchool Biology
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/unt.s.is.html

When you get through patting yourself on the back, and posting the next 8 statements, don't forget to flip over to the next page and add this bit:

"So, if there are so many limitations and uncertainties to science, why is science so useful? It turns out that the limitations are the strengths of science. From the actual use and application of the knowledge of science to real world problems, we have found that scientific knowledge is the most reliable knowledge we have about the natural world. In other words, most of the time, it works! This has enabled much of our work in space exploration, modern medicine, agriculture and technology to be as successful as it has been, at an ever-increasing rate."

The same source: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/unt.s.is.html

This is a good description in how I think. Not dragging up the evo again but that's exactly why I regard Evo with skepticism because it feels as though we are being manipulated into not questioning it. Sorta like the Emperors New Clothes. Only an "idiot" would question etc etc



I think this is a great way to approach many subjects as well. It reminds me of the "Global Warming" band wagon as well. That the big popular idea is that Global Warming is ruining the planet.

And whether or not its true is not my concern. Its the way people lap up what ever is set in front of them without questioning it.



Great post fullywired.

And then you wonder why people say you are agenda driven. Its quite obvious with this post that it rankles you that Iams has dared to suggest that precious science is less than perfect.

But that is not what he is saying. He's pointing out the way science is COMMUNICATED and how that has changed because of the backlash against creationists.

But go on with your preemptive argument.

How does that discredit anything in the first page Shafts? It's actually what I like about science, it works for what it's intended very well, not all of humanity's processes do. It's why I am so bothered when people try to hide under the umbrella of science to promote an agenda.

What I am trying to do is put the article back into the context that it was written.

This is a website offering a method of teaching science, they have 1 page stating what science isn't, 1 page stating what science is, and a summary of why science generates the most reliable knowledge.

I'm tired of people taking evidence out of context to try and manipulate it for their own "agenda".

As far as that "agenda" that you claim to see at work, it seems to be going through it's own evolution. Earlier in this thread you seemed to suggest that there was a general agenda to push scince as fact, now later you seem to suggest it is a direct agenda to silence Creationists? Please, why don't you sit down and work out your hypothesis clearly and specifically before you post, then you won't end up with 20 some pages with people debating apples and oranges.

You wonder why people get frustrated when they debate you?

Do you want to just fast forward and get to your point? Not trying to sound rude, I just don't see how debating over those points is relevant to the conversation.

Science is communicated the same it has been for a 100 years or more, through peer-reviewed publishing that 99.9% of the public doesn't care to read. People arguing about it on a forum are not communicating science to each other. In last ten years the backlash has been against science, not creationism, because of the rise of fundamental christianity in this country. It's the fundementalist who have an agenda and something to gain in a political and social sense. Science is data without agenda. It's how data is used or ignored that represents an agenda. The more data is ignored the more blatant the agenda.

Oh I absolutely agree with this. Especially the part that says science is data without agenda. This is exactly why I am skeptical about evolution as a science. The more data is ignored the blatant the agenda is right.

To me the minute the focus steps away from the data, its starting to change into agenda.


And Shaftsbury I am NOT going to be held responsible for other people's trying to drag the topic that I stated off its course. I have ALWAYS stated the same thing about Evolution being turned into a new religion because of the fact that agenda has seeped into it.

You can find this as far back as some of my first posts on the site.

You all are the ones who misunderstood what I was saying because you operate from a preconcieved notion that my point was "doubting evolution" and not being SKEPTICAL of the field. So please.


The reason you are saying that I'm changing my argument is that its dawning on you that my argument holds merit and its not as easy to bat it away because I have ABSOLUTELY given enough evidence to explain my position and you can't argue it any more.

This is why the others have left. Because they realize they were all this time arguing something ELSE.

He made his statement pages ago. He made his point and was told he needed to deconstruct it so he did and now you are complaining about that as well?


Bottom line, if you look at what we are saying without bias, its obvious there is something going on here that is NOT science.

No, True.

We left because we were debating.

You were arguing.

Oh please. I wasn't even referring to you. You weren't debating or arguing. You were just flapping your gums and being ridiculous. Are you going to go back and copy and paste all of my posts again and then when I showed you that there wasn't a conflict, you were just too wrapped up in your own ego to read properly you huffed off without a single reply.

Riiigght.


Btw I've been apolgized to by several people in PM so spare me your personal drama.


The bottom line remains, to flip out on someone for being skeptical towards science is Hypocrisy. Science welcomes questions. So if you are getting angry and upset by the questions you are not being scientific at all. No matter how "stupid" or "nonsensical" you think the question might be.

The only stupid question is the unasked one.

ok I'll grasp the nettle


Why are you so hostile to science ,I think you passed scepticism some time ago ?



fullywired

Oh I'm not hostile to science at all. I'm just reacting to the people in this thread that took a legitimate and correct statement and debated it for 20 pages because they wanted to make it "anti science" when its actually PRO science.


I think science is fascinating. I think that the whole idea of open ended learning is the way to go. Religion is a major turn off to me because it tries to box in transcendence into ritual and rules.

I marvel science. Carl Sagan was one of my person heros growing up. And I have family members who work in prestigious positions at major science Labs around the country.

Science is beautiful, science is marvelous. Science is art.


I have no problem with Science. I have instead problem with agenda turning science into something else, and agenda driven scientists blind to their own bias, trying to dictate which questions we are allowed to ask.

This is a perfect example of my point, initially your objection was that the documentaries were stating science as fact, evolution was not mentioned.

A few posts later evolution suddenly popped into the agenda, then later on Creationism.

I know it's hard to stay focused when numerous people are posting, so my suggestion is that you state clearly what your objection is from the beginning.

I am well aware of what your position is, I have heard it numerous times over the years, but this thread has been bouncing all around and in my opinion your position has too.

For one thing, you have never defined who is involved in this agenda. All science? Only those sciences involved in Evolution Theory? Is it only a few scientists, or is it certain science organizations?




Well you may have given enough evidence to explain your position, but you certainly haven't supplied enough evidence to support or prove your position.

The only reason I would have to stop arguing, would be that I have no evidence to argue against.

True, why do you continually resort to ad hominem argument and personal attacks on those who don't think as you do?

I find your attitude perplexing. It was quite obvious I wasn't asking you whether you were skeptical about science, as you point out, that would be hypocrisy. I was asking you...and being skeptical...about your claim that science had an agenda. You did not prove that claim other than stating that it was, in your opinion, a fact. I remain skeptical.

Please don't try to rewrite what others have written.



Since when has education become an agenda?



An example of the maturity you have displayed throughout this thread. I have put up with your tantrums out of respect for the intelligence and insight you have, in the past, displayed. Since your return, and especially on this thread, you have shown nothing but disrespect and churlishness towards many of those who have questioned you. I never said I was leaving the thread and I never resorted to a personal attack on you. I stopped posting because I didn't wish to be drawn into an argument with you and I posted again because you misrepresented what others had attempted to achieve. I had hoped very much that I wouldn't have to write this but your continual berating of those who simply disagree with you has gone on for long enough.

If you wish to make a contribution to this little community, might I suggest you do so with the respect that others here deserve. I would take this opportunity to remind you of something very important (at least in my opinion)...

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It's very simple, True. I would ask that you stop your personal attacks and focus on what is actually being asked of you.

Now, to carry on. Please clarify if you think 'science' has an agenda or some scientists have an agenda.

Leonardo do you realize that the ONLY time you have had something to say in this thread is to defend your ego. You've been promising to bow out for pages now so could you finally keep your word this time?


Shaftsbury, while the thread bounced all over the place I know what my question is because I have had the same question for a few years now. The question is Does Evolutionary Science as it is presented to the public have an agenda. The answer is yes.

The next question is "Has this influenced the way Evolutionary sciences are studied" that is what I am still withholding judgment on.


Now honestly I've been nailed to the wall in semantic argument and such things, but my quesitons have never changed. And people insist that I'm supporting creaionism or that my "religious views" are causing me to ask this and whatnot.

And its utter nonsense. I may or may not have answered your quesitons properly. But I am NOT going to be held repsonsible for other people's deliberate attempts to confuse the point.

Leonardo is STILL DOING IT.

Its ridiculous after a while.

Please reference where I made these 'promises'?



No, your opinion is "Yes". I'll ask again. Is education an 'agenda'?

There is no confusing of the point. Your whole argument hangs on whether science (in this case Evolutionary Science) has an agenda. If you can prove this then my skepticism will disappear. If you cannot then I must dismiss your claim as demanded by the skeptical method.

What are you talking about? Evolution is the basis of biology and is not in question at all. You can keep ignoring that fact over and over and not realize that it's Creationism advocates, that have no evidence behind them at all, that have the agenda. They want to have religion taught as though it's science.

Throughout this entire discussion all that's been stated by your party is "Science has an agenda". Nothing but an unsupported, unfalsifiable claim.

Be more specific. Who is at the forefront? What is their goal? How are they pushing it?

My Bad, I went back to post #140 because that was the one that brought me into this discussion, and you were clearly talking about evolution prior to it.

However, I don't think you are making a clear distinction between general science, and evolution theory.

Within that thread you seem to switch the terminology back and forth as if they were the same thing.

You do not require evolution theory to make an educated guess at how Trilobites lived and looked.

The fossils are there, and in some cases such as the Burgess Shales, the entire community of organisms is sometimes preserved. Modern analogies provide insight into behavior, but once again you don't require evolution theory to accomplish that.

In order for you to say that science has an agenda to push evolution theory, you have to be able to demonstrate that they used evolution theory, and not some other branch of science to provide the evidence. In the example of the first documentary, I don't think you have.

You cannot teach any form of basic biology without teaching evolution.

That's not quite what I was getting at probably bad wording on my part.

What I am trying to get across is that there are other ways of determining what the surface of the earth looked like 4.4 billion years ago, and what Trilobite communities looked like other than evolutionary theory.

I'm mostly talking about the use of fossils and geology.

Oh, got it.

I wish I could Raptor, but it seems the only way I'm going to get past being accused of distorting stuff or not knowing what I'm talking about, AND get past the ridiculous attempts to derail me from making the point I'm trying to make, so I want to make sure we all agree on some things. I am now assuming (despite what assuming does to all of us) that everyone agrees with the first 4 statements about what Science is not, so, let's move on to the next 4.
This obviously rules out science's ability to prove or disprove or really speak at all about Creationism, since by definition a supernatural being is involved. However, this also refutes any and every claim that something having to do with evolution has been scientifically proven, correct?

This statement by itself should be enough to back up the issue I have with anyone who speaks of any part of evolution as concrete fact. Here I am speaking of evolution as that natural process which results in speciation through the increase in genetic information, not ANY process which results in changes due to a loss of genetic information.


Claiming concreteness or proof is bad science and only proves the validity of this statement.


I contend that any and all scientists who are communicating their interpretation of data as "what happened" are not using science properly.

Thank you for admitting what I have been saying for about 15 pages now. The people attempting to derail the conversation have insisted that I am saying SCIENCE has an agenda. And I have not meant that and I think I've tried to be as clear as possible in showing that

You say I am not making a clear distinction. Well I'm sorry. But my original sentence in this entire thread referred to EVOLUTION. I did not say science in general.

I think the confusion came up when I used general science data to show how in Scientific Journals the language is much different than the language used by evolutionists. I think some people thought I was actually debating the SCIENCE in the articles which just shows that they jumped to the gun based on their preconceived notion that I disliked science.

I have always been talking about evolutionary science. But typing that out over and over again gets tedious after a while so I may have slipped in it.





I have also been talking about the language used. For example the reason that Evo scientists started using the word FACT to discribe evo is BECAUSE of the Creationists.

Now since Creationism has absolutely nothing to do with science this shows that they are allowing the influence of mumbo jumbo mythology to get their goat and change things about the way the science is expressed.

Saying evolution is a fact MIGHT be true. But that's not how science expresses itself in other fields. Now evolution is a fact but dancing back and forth between macro and micro with the term fact is blurring the truth a little.

What I am saying is that the REACTION to the Creationists is not about science its about being RIGHT. And that in and of itself is not science.


You can sit here and argue that the reason this thread went down the way it did is because I questioned science and I will tell you this is not true. It is only when you question evolution do the emotions come out the way the have here.

I say this because I have seen it happen over and over again.

But in a way I think you guys are starting to see that either I have horrible communication skills (which I don't think is the case) or Evolution is a sacred cow in skepticism that if it is questioned automatically renders the person doing the questioning as a fool in the eyes of science.

I have stood my ground with this for years and will continue to do so. Questioning evolution IS scientific. To say it is not is hypocrisy.

No and no. What it can speak to about creationism and the biblical timeline is that most definetely did not happen as strict creationism describes it. So you have two options if you still want to believe in creationism: 1- God started it all billions of years ago and let it go. 2- God intentionally made the earth and the universe look vastly old when he created it 6000 and whatever years ago. I find neither of those tenable. You essentially have the same choice with evolution. See below.



Evolution is as factual as gravity. It's backed by evidence from many fields of science and we have never found a physical exception to it. We keep discovering more about it, just as we do gravity, but nothing that will ever overturn it either just deepen our understanding of it. Again, you take the supernatural avenue if you want and say god just makes it look that way but that's tougher because we've witness small-scale speciation in microbes and large scale changes in allele frequencies in larger species just as we'd expect. This means the process is still in motion making it tougher to ascert that god just made it to look like evolution happened.



That's all too generalized. Some things are more concrete than others. If we're talking about proofs for Hawking Radiation then interpretation means a lot. But Hawking Radiation is not on the level of a proper scientific theory because it's predictions have not been observed.

Point is, yes, science makes no predictions about things outside of natural laws (or the supernatural if you will). That doesn't mean that a supernatural theory that, by definition, has no evidence to back it up can be made up to circumvent an established theory and be given equal weight.

You're not questioning evolution. Questioning evolution would be finding evidence. You're not and you can't You have a personal agenda because you don't like the way some people on here talk to creationists. Newsflash, we're not scientists. If we find it foolish that people think ridiculous things without proof then we're free to say it. You see some evolution agenda but scientists aren't out there picketing churches or trying to force evolution into the bible. There's a slew of anti-evolution books published by creationists every year, all with little or no science background. You'll note the scientific community doesn't respond to such drivel. It does it's work. Please show me where there's a scientific agenda when it comes to evolution. Just like forever school science books are publishing science, it just so happens that right now a bunch of people uneducated in the field find it doesn't gel with their myth. Bear in mind evolution has been part of the school cirriculum for 40+ years and it was no problem. It's just a problem now because fundamentalists find it untenable though their alternative is without scientific merit. And that rise in fundamentalism is recent.

It's okay, I'm happy as long as you add your own comments (like you did in this post). That way I at least know what you're getting at so I don't end up digging up any irrelevant points.



Science relies on empirical evidence and observations, and I suppose "supernatural" can be defined as a subject for which neither are obtainable, so science can't really say much for that. But on the flipside, if a subject relating to the supernatural makes a definitive statement, we can verify whether that it or is not correct using evidence/observation, i.e. pretending that a supernatural prophecy stated that an enormous volcanic eruption should have taken place last week. Science can tell us that wasn't true.



The article reads: "It's not a process which can produce any kind of explanation". I believe it's just making a comment on the fact that science can't provide explanations for the supernatural (can't make just any explanation up), rather than trying to say that science can not provide any explanation at all (as I think you've interpreted it). As such I don't see what bearing this has on evolution.



As I've said before, there are such things as facts in science. Sexual reproduction means that half the genetic information of each parent is passed on to the offspring --> Genetic variation. This is a fact, and just one of the facts that people are referring to in regards to evolution. No one is trying to say that the entire theory of evolution is fact, a theory by definition can not be. But there are facts in place that tell us evolution can and does take place.



This point is brought up a lot, it's usually countered by someone asking "define information?" and the point is then abandoned.



I agree with the article, although your interpretation of it seems iffy to me; I think you're stretching it too far. People make mistakes, sure, but it seems to me as though you're trying to use this as if to say that nothing can be known with certainty.



Where does the error lie, in the scientists' method or in their conclusion?