> The Big Bang theory has been disproved,

Has it? When? Has the Vatican been informed?

(The guy who came up with the Big Bang theory got a medal from the Pope, you know. It's been officially endorsed by the Vatican and everything.)

> evolution has been disproved,

Has it? You'd think it would be in the papers or something.
I mean, imagine the fame and fortune that would go to the guy who proved thousands of biologists wrong. The media would have a field day. But where are the exposes? The headlines? The press conferences?

> they are both THEORIES anyway, and yet schools continue to teach them as fact.

*sigh* Not this again.

Cue quote:

. In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of
. confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of
. the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many
. aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up
. their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? [...]

. Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things,
. not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories
. are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when
. scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced
. Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome.
. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism
. or by some other yet to be discovered. [...]

. Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very
. beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely
. understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually
. emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing
. the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of
. evolution.

(Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981)


> The only teacher I know of who didn't teach them as fact kept saying "Now, this is only a theory."

Then you were badly served by your teacher. Did it never occur to you to wonder why this teacher *was* the only one to make that claim?

> Actually, Darwin himself said that evolution would be disproven if you could find one thing
> that could not have evolved naturally. Let me give you some examples: blood clotting (it either
> has 23 or 32 steps, I can't remember which).

So? How does that mean that it couldn't have evolved naturally?

> Complex eyes.

The actual structure of eyes actually suggests evolution, rather than creation. They're not very efficient. The design suggests that *this* happened, then *that* changed to counteract the side-effects of *this* happening, then...

> Human intelligence. This last one, expecially. We couldn't have got brains and thought like this
> without being created like it.

Why not?

> -Morris Cecil "OK, maybe I don't have as much intelligence as SOME people, but I most certainly
> did not evolve from an ape" Glalet, Tue 20 Jul A.D. 1999

You got something against apes?

Pa"I was enjoying my day until this happened. You had to go and press my button, didn't you?"ul