This is a great explanation. However, there is one point of contention I would like to clarify:

Quote:When something becomes scientific law, the puzzle is finished [...]

This is not accurate. Theories do not graduate into laws; they are different things with different functions.

A law is a statement of fact based on consistent observation. Laws are readily demonstrable and non-disprovable facts. A law can be a mathematical model that describes something, but that model never changes. Perhaps even more crucially, a law can be independently tested and will remain consistently true.

A theory, on the other hand, is a hypothesis that has been tested and found not to be faulty. To use the definition from wiktionary: "A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed [...]". Note here that the part "observed facts or phenomena" would be our laws, things that are readily provable.

As an example, while a law of gravity might involve the mathematical model that describes the manner in which gravity affects an object with mass, the theory of gravity is the 'why,' the set of ideas that explain the laws.

Aye, but I'm having to dumb it down, remember. ;D

Dumbing something down doesn't usually involve the creation of inaccuracies. You could easily explain the difference between theories and laws in the following way:

Scientific laws describe what we see happen. Scientific theories are attempts to explain what we see.

(May 10, 2012 at 6:34 am)Tiberius Wrote: Dumbing something down doesn't usually involve the creation of inaccuracies. You could easily explain the difference between theories and laws in the following way:

Scientific laws describe what we see happen. Scientific theories are attempts to explain what we see.

No but when you're building an analogy it gets a bit tricky to make it work properly. Plus in truth I DID have a misconception on how Laws come to be.

Why is it every time evolution is mentioned, the Creationists always hijack the threads? Why do people put so much time and energy into debunking science, do they really feel that threatened by it? They REALLY don't want evolution to be true, do they?

Because the believers of fairy tales recognize how important it is to have science on ones side. They would like to claim it for themselves (and continuosly attempt to do so), but, there are these nagging issues to deal with first.

Most of the creationists you'll see around here practically worship at the altar of science. It is inconceivable to them that their concept of god (or narrative of god) could be in error. So wherever there is a disconnect they claim that the science presented is incorrect. Notice, however, that they would like to claim that some other scientific principle somehow "disproves" it, or that E by NS, for example, is just a massive conspiracy. They need science to be "true" as much as they need their religious beliefs to be "true".

That's the secular influence on faith right there. You won't find a single one of them with even a smidgeon of the faith of their predecessors.

You only have to look at the "Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith" to see which particular mast they've nailed their colours to:

Quote:In order to preserve the function and integrity of the ministry in its mission to proclaim the absolute truth and authority of Scripture and to provide a biblical role model to our employees, and to the Church, the community, and society at large, it is imperative that all persons employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith, to include the statement on marriage and sexuality, and conduct themselves accordingly.

[. . .]

Section 4: General

The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:

* Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
* The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
* The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
* The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.
* The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.
* By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

AiG-model creationists are like tourists trying to find their way around New York using a century-old map of the London Underground, obstinately insisting that the map has to be absolutely correct, so it must be the city that's wrong.

It's ironic that creationists claim to be pro-science when they spend so much time debunking science. Young-earth creationists in particular not only reject evolution, but they also reject geology, the big bang theory and radiometric dating. But I don't care what anyone says, if you are anti-evolution then you are anti-scientific. A person that hated black people but accepted all other races as his/her equal would still be a racist. You can't just cherry-pick the science that can be consistent with scripture and reject all the ones that are inconsistent. If you did that, then you're flushing basic scientfic principles down the toilet.

The way they relentlessly scrutinise and question the evidence for evolution yet blindly believe every word of scripture is not healthy science by any means.

It's just like the people who say that the Earth is flat who claim that the curvature of the Earth is an optical illusion and the only evidence they'll accept is to go out into space and see the round Earth for themselves. Oh, and we also have to prove that the round Earth is not a simulation or a hullicination and not an optical illusion too. Forget photographic and film evidence, those are all doctored.