“My only point here is to explain the usage of the term “theory” in a scientific context, so that hopefully it’s clear why the people who say “even scientists admit it’s only a theory” aren’t really making a good argument against it.”

Sure, saying the words “just” and “only” don’t do the theory or the evidence behind it justice. However, it IS a theory based upon several assumptions, two of those being naturalism and uniformitarianism. Ignoring that you must apply these two assumptions to the unobservable and untestable past in order to reach your “every living thing has a common ancestor” conclusion is just irrational.

“Simplifying the conclusions of evolutionary biology to “therefore we [all] came from pond scum” is, if not a straw man, then somewhere between weasel words and an appeal to ridicule.”

I agree, but I reserve the right to poke alittle fun and use alittle sarcasm from time to time. Surely you wouldn’t begrudge me that would you?

“There are rather more layers of intricacies to it than that in the ways that scientists have actually collected data and worked out their ideas, some of which I hope to write about soon.”

I look forward to it.

” In this case I’m just discussing how the terms apply.”

I understand, I merely wanted to point out to you the differences between observable and testable science and the philosophically naturalistic and uniformitarian conclusion of “big” evolution / macroevolution / molecules-to-man evolution / fish to philosopher evolution / we-all-came-from-pond-scum evolution (whichever we should call it so as not too appeal to insult too much). To use them interchangibly, or to attempt to show observable science as evidence of the unobservable stuff, is to pull a bait and switch. If I was jumping the gun and going past the scope of your article, then I apologize.

Not seeing the bait, or the switch, or the straw in this one – I’ve kept to a fairly limited scope here, and just provided a response to one particular assertion which is often made from the Creationism/ID camp. My only point here is to explain the usage of the term “theory” in a scientific context, so that hopefully it’s clear why the people who say “even scientists admit it’s only a theory” aren’t really making a good argument against it. Some people do say that, and do have a problem with evolution, whatever conclusions that might lead us to draw about their intelligence.

Simplifying the conclusions of evolutionary biology to “therefore we [all] came from pond scum” is, if not a straw man, then somewhere between weasel words and an appeal to ridicule. There are rather more layers of intricacies to it than that in the ways that scientists have actually collected data and worked out their ideas, some of which I hope to write about soon. But this post is really just about the one thing; I’m not saying I’ve proved anything here, or even given any evidence yet to show why evolution is a good theory at all. In this case I’m just discussing how the terms apply.

Your own personal reasons for believing as you do don’t seem to be very relevant here.

But see, here’s the problem, you’re doing that old strawman bait and switch again. No intelligent human being has a problem with evolution. Christians just have a problem with the unscientific, naturalistic, philosophical conclusion of “therefore we call came from pond scum.” I agree with Gould, evolution IS a fact, but there is also a theoretical part of it that assumes naturalism and uniformitarianism. These are assumptions I stay away from.

Along the same lines, currently observed evidence merely allows us to make inferences about the unobservable past. To say that the concrete, testable, observable phenomena of allele frequencies changing over time proves every inference made about the past is to be willfully ignorant of the difference.