[jem]

A student goes to see his tutor and says to him , "Professor, I'm confused as to what makes a good theory, we have learnt that theories and ideas have changed over time, so how are we to recognise a good theory when we hear one?" The Professor thinks for a few minutes and then says, "consider that I have two clocks, one is completely broken and the other works but gains a few minutes every day. Logically which one is the better timepiece?". "The working clock", says the student.

"Think again" says the professor, "the working clock will never show the right time but the broken clock will at least be accurate twice a day".

"But what use is that" says the student, "we don't know when the 'right' time is. At least with the working clock I'll have an approximation of the time".

"And now" says the professor, "you know what to look for in a good theory. It may not be perfect and is likely to need revision in the light of new discoveries, but it does allow us to make predictions which can be tested to check the validity of otherwise of the theory. This is always preferable to a theory which is given as the 'final answer' and permits no testing at all".

Does science understand everything about everything? No, certainly not and doesn't claim to. What is does offer is a framework by which we can learn more and hope to arrive at a fuller understanding of the universe. Science depends on what is refered to now as the scientific method'. Observations are made, theories are developed to explain these based on what is already 'known', and these theories should make predictions which can be tested. And evolution theory makes predictions about what should be observed every bit as much as quantum theory does.

Everything (and I do mean everything) in science is a theory. There are no absolute facts. Which is sometimes a bit confusing to a non-scientist who expect that science and scientists 'know' stuff. For those who claim that evolution is just a theory (true) and that other 'theories' should be given equal time in classes and children allowed to make their own mind up about what to believe should really consider this; just how many theories should be included? How about the ancient Egyptian theory which states that at the beginning of time the god Amon-Ra masturbated himself and the result was the creation of the universe. Surely just as valid as the Biblical version and with precisely the same level of evidence.

Aerodynamics is only a theory after all. So if a college decided to start teaching its students to design aircraft in the form of a cube with no engines because the teacher has a theory that invisible pixies are actually responsible for holding aircraft up-that would be acceptable would it? Anyone willing to risk flying in such a machine?

If there was the slightest evidence for creationism it would be shouted from the rooftops. There simply isn't any. What creationists do is point out weaknesses or gaps in standard evolutionary theory-all of which is quite normal in science. The other means of attack is try to show that the universe is far younger than evolutionary theory requires. Hence the 'speed of light might have changed' arguement which would throw all the calculations out. Yes it might have changed but there is simply no good reason to suspect it has. It all seems to be a bit straw-clutching to me. Or the other arguement which goes like 'I don't understand how the universe came to be like it is through natural forces-so I don't believe it did' Or my favourite, 'but surely it's better to believe in a all-loving creator god than things being essentially random' Well yes I see the point but I'd also like to believe that people wouldn't fly airliners into building or blow themselves up on the tube. Just wanting or needing something to be the case doesn't make it so.

Faith is faith, it doesn't need proof or evidence, Science does and science are faith are totally separate entities.