The initial post in this thread is one of the strangest I have ever come across. It presents a thoroughly uninformed view of science, and is filled with inaccuracies that must be addressed if any understanding is to be reached.
Originally Posted by sonz
This is not an acceptable definition of the word "theory". "Theory" does not equal "fraud", by any stretch of the imagination. Quantum theory and String theory are possible, but they have certainly not been imposed on the public in a deliberately fraudulent manner, neither does anyone claim that all of their pronouncements are definitively true.
Only in evolution science is an untested and unproven theory declared and accepted as fact.
I take it the writer is not familiar with quantum theory, for instance.
The evolution fib (i.e., that evolution is fact, not theory, and that creation science is an oxymoron) is promoted as truth, a scientific certainty.
Nobody says that evolution is certainly true and proven. Science can only tell us what is definitely not true. However, an overwhelming mass of evidence points towards evolution as being true (e.g. practically the whole of modern biology).
Masquerading as holy writ, it cannot be defiled in our schools by even the slightest reference to theory or intelligent design.
Evolution does not have anything in common with holy writ. Holy writ demands belief without evidence. Any evidence that could be found to utterly contradict evolution would be taken into account immediately, and scientists would be delighted to be proven wrong.
Intelligent design should be taught in classes devoted to religion, but if it were taught in science classes it would be an insult to the intelligence of the students. ID is special pleading on behalf of theists, and has nothing to do with science.
If evolution is unquestionable and inviolate, it must be a religion. If it were scientific, it would be open to debate.
Evolution is open to debate, as is everything in science. If you have the evidence, put it forward, and scientific theories will be adjusted accordingly.
If evolution is not religious dogma, why is its doctrine so vigorously defended by its prelates even to the degree that all contrary thought must be censored?
There is evidence in support of evolution, unlike religious dogma.
Evolution is in essence a fraud perpetrated on a gullible and trusting society. It is rife with fabricated and fraudulent data.
Bring forth the evidence to substantiate this claim.
This is how it is justified as science. It is not surprising that its concepts have been adopted by the hard sciences, as the editorial so eloquently disclosed.
What are the "hard" sciences?
Science's mantra is, "Be not dismayed, we have an explanation for everything."
Really? Can you provide a quote from a scientist who's actually said this?
Now, all you need is to believe without question that science has all the answers, that they can never be wrong, and that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole.
I don't see how this sentence has any relevance to the discussion.