Animale wrote:Evolution is a theory.
The same way that gravity is a theory.
The same way that atomic structure is a theory.
To scientists, theory means something far more serious than what it means in everyday life. Theory is one step short of fact. What most folks think are theories, scientists call hypotheses.
Animale
Evolution is a hypothesis of the behavioural drive behind observed facts. Gravity is an observed event. The equation (F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2) used to describe gravity is a mathematical approximation to the observed gravitational behaviour between two bodies.
Atomic structure is an observal state. The construct described to children during school level physics lessons is an approximation of the observed state.
These things are not similar in the way that you glossed over above.
Your assertion that theory is more important to scientist is flawed due to the imprecision of common language. Scientists recognize different levels of theorization based upon the body of evidence that supports it. Terms like postulate, rules, theories, hypotheses, and laws are used in scientific circles to distinguish between pure conjecture and rigid abstract construct. Physical sciences cannot rely upon the realms of abstract thought available to mathematicians, so they rely upon consistent logical frameworks of theories supported by reproducable experimentation and observations of their surroundings. The strength and solidity of these theories grows as the body of evidence grows to support them and as more related theories are integrated together to build a complimentary, internally consistent framework.
Science is a tool to understand, describe, and mathematically approximate the world around us. Engineering is the application of this understanding to construct tools, structures, and vehicles. These disciplines all have room for massive growth.
The Victorian notion that we are on the verge of knowing everything their is to know no longer persists. The Newtonian notion that we comprehensively understand certain fundamentals has been unwoven with Einstein and his peers. We understand our models are imperfect approximations and we are in a seemingly endless revisionist cycle to draw closer to a perfect understanding.
While we do not pretend to have The Answers as scientists, many fields have strength of conviction based upon reproducable observable evidence and sound logical constructs. Scientists see beyond the medievil "gremlins in the machine" and seek understanding of the world around them.
Creationism used as an alternative to scientific hyphothesis is an anthema to the pursuits of knowledge and understanding that have build the technological marvels of the world that we live in today.
As a student of science and a seeker of knowledge, I denounce anyone who promote ignorance, but I do understand that science and technology is not for everyone. However, introducing this into America's public school system is truly appauling.