chubaca is right on this. Theories, laws, and hypothesis must be constantly and rigorously tested to see if they have flaws. If they do, they must find a new theory, law, hypothesis that can better explain the evidence. You think evolution has been the same for the last 150 years. Darwin had no idea about mutations, DNA, even how inheritance worked like Mendel did, but none of those things ruined the original theory of evolution. It just revised them in that fit with the evidence. Same with the theory of gravity, cell theory, theory of relativity, etc.

^^ exactly. that's actually the main difference between science and religion, it's that science is 'revisable' when new infirmation is found that further makes the theory better, whereas in religion's case you can't just 'revise' something as it is supposedly the word of god and therefore by definition it is 100% true, and as a result anything somebody happens to find either agrees with what god says or is false

this is why creationists seem stubborn at times, it's not cuz they are, it's just their beleifs that lead them to test everything being said in the world against the words of their god, then make judgement on whether it's true or not. no matter how much evidence is supporting what's being said, if it doesn't agree with what god says then it's false (...unless it's truly undeniable, then it becomes "what god meant by that sentence" :p)

While there might be scientists with big enough contributions to science, who can't accept that their theory might be wrong, as a general rule science loves being proven wrong because it's something proven and one fewer false notion. Science won't feel hurt and offended if something is challenged, proven wrong and something else more plausible and in accordance with evidence takes its place.

Religion takes quite the opposite route by ignoring whatever evidence isn't in accordance with its sacred texts. And as people pointed out, simply believing in a god is one thing, believing in an ancient creation myth another, and insisting on the absolute truthfulness of the latter and teaching it to others yet another thing entirely.

Yes, but of course Creationism/intelligent design isn't a Scientifi theory. Of course that makes disproving it, not only simple to do, but you don't need to be a scientest to do it as if something relies on interference from a theological being beyond the natural world. Then its already gone beyond the scope of what Science deals with and has moved into unverifiable non-naturalistic territory. Its probably more important to dispell the silly notion that it should be taught in Science class because allowing such things to be taught weakens not only the Scientific method but could lead to more crazy theories implanting themselves where they don't belong in education.

Well genius, when the organization that is part of the controversy goes and "picks" an apparent independent panel to investigate something, common sense usually delegates to us that it's going to be propaganda, but I mean go ahead and keep drinking the kool-aid.

Its a misunderdstanding in regards to what a scientific theory actually is and also the distincion between theory and fact.

Evolution is both a fact or pretty damn close to it and a thoery at the same time. The thoery being an explanation based on the facts.

Scientests are in agreement that evolution happens. But the explanations for why it happens goes under the title of theory of evolution.

There is a distiction between the fact of the matter and the theory that attempts to explain the facts in science.

So the notion that Evolution is just a thoery isn't neccesarily valid if you're saying that creatures don't evolve, because that part of the science really isn't in question anymore. Of course one can call the theory of evolution a theory, because well it is.

But there is still a distinction between what a scientific theory is and what a theistic thoery is. Ones an attempt to explain and understand the facts of the natural world and one is an thoery that has no facts supporting it and deals in generally with realms that exist beyond the physical world. Hence why religion always has an emphasis on faith. Which is something science can't allow to be part of its method.

So no, you don't share the same thoeries, but neither do the theories share anything logically in common. Creationism has components that are near magical (or however you want to spin it) that have absolutely nothing to do with the perceptable world and thus can never be proven to have any varying degree of truth or correctness and thus isn't Scientific at all.

Not to mention that basings ones understanding of the natural world on a holybook that never changes (we'll disregard the constant manipulation of the bible over the years...) again isn't Scientific. Science is all about constant improvement of ones ideas about the universe. It changes. If a theory came out tomorrow that blew the thoery of evolution out of the water Science would eventually simply use that thoery instead once its been proven through peer review etc to be a better theory.

This is a tired, tired old line that simply serves to highlight people's misunderstanding of the word.  Here is a list of some of the more famous theories in science that I pulled from a quick Google search.

1. The Atomic Theory
2. The Theory of Matter and Energy: Conservation of Matter and Energy
3. The Cell Theory
4. The Germ Theory
5. The Theory of Plate Tectonics
6. The Theory of Evolution
7. The Big Bang Theory
8. Chaos Theory
9. The “Gaia” Theory of a Sustainable Earth which is illustrated with the idea of Spaceship Earth
10. The Theory of Quantum Mechanics
11. The Theory of Special Relativity which subsumes The Theory of General Relativity which subsumes Newtonian theories of motion
12. The Photon Theory of Light Energy and its speed of light
13. The Theory of Electromagnetism as begun by Maxwell and continued with the work of others
14. The Theory of Radioactivity or Nuclear Theory
15. The Theory of Molecular Bonds
16. The Theory of States of Matter—or is this part of the Atomic Theory and the Molecular Bond Theory?
17. The Theory of Thermodynamics—hey, I guess this theory takes care of the States of Matter and the Molecular Bond theories.
18. The Theory of Homeostasis within Living Organisms
19. The Constructivist Theory of Learning
20. The theories of self and development of mental processes in the brain.
21. Theory of Gravity

They are theories in the sense that we don't assume that they can explain all characteristics of the phenomena being described, rather we know they can explain and predict many aspects of said phenomena, but hope that one day there will be a theory that gives us a better or more complete description.

People don't question gravity or the theory that describes it, yet it has long been supersceded by the theory of General Relatively which far better describes gravity, the practical applications of which affect such mundane tasks as planning aircraft flight paths and GPS tracking. Nonetheless, Newton's Universal Theory of Graviation was the best description of gravity that we had for over 200 years and it's still 'good enough' to describe many aspects of gravity.

Saying "Natural selection is just a theory" belies the fact that even if there is a theory that superscedes it, the theory is undoubtedly going to have much in common with natural selection and is intensely unlikely to include intelligent design.

It may be just a theory, but creationism is just an idea, albeit a popular one.

Amen! For the underlined statement above, the majority of people can't do long division or point out the location of the United States on a map. That's why most civilizations don't look to the majority for scientific information. Most go to the experts and they all unanimously agree that evolution is true based on evidence and logic.

that's the point i originally tried to make. im no creationist, but im not entirely sold on the theory of evolution (i believe in adaptation and natural selection, though). the way i see it, this is something so far beyond our comprehension that to call anyone out on their own beliefs or theories is just ignorant.

I'm not sure if you are referring to me as "ignorant", but yes I call people out on creation being said as if its a scientiric theory. The people who say that are ignorant. Oh and @nirvana you just been pwned :)