>In the November 2004 issue of National Geographic the main article is about the theory of evolution. Considering the recent monster thread about the same topic I thought I would post the opening paragraph from this article for those who are interested. The entire article is worth reading.
>
>
>Was Darwin Wrong? No, the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming.
>by David Quammen
>National Geographic, Nov 2004.
>
>Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life’s work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It’s a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earths living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it’s “just” a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is “just” a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept is as a fact. That’s what scientists mean when
>they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence confidently but provisionally – taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.
>
>
>Also very interesting is the results of polls taken in the US and discussed in a few subsequent paragraphs of the article:
>
>No less than 45 percent of responding US adults believe in creationism and that evolution played no role in shaping us at all. 37 percent allowed for a divine initiative to get things started and evolution as the creative means. Only 12 percent believe that humans evolved from other life forms without involvement of a God.
>
>
>That’s interesting …It is well explained. It always amazes me how most people do not understand the scientific meaning of "Theory" vs. the common usage, semantic meaning. A scientific Theory is the highest possible definition and outcome you can hope for.
Do you have a link to the article you mentioned?
Note: I did not followed that thread so I don't know if these comments were already written by someonbe else there.
