Creation vs Evolution, the science of origin

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
I have read them all, and while I'm not an expert in every scientific field in question, nor am I an expert in Biblical interpretation (read: Biblical rationalization), I can say that many of them seem to be very valid.

---

Yet I've plainly displayed for you how you lack even basic knowledge of the very scriptures you criticize. I even pointed out for you how some of your attacks were just flat wrong (no response from you. Still waiting).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
Anthson, this statement right here is why I seldom get into debates with Christians. The idea that a crocodile went from a herbivore to a carnivore in a couple of thousand years is so opposed to any scientific works I have studied that we might as well come from different planets.

---

You know, I will admit right here of something I am unsure of. I have to study it before I can give a conclusion, but every reference to eating meat pre-flood that I've studied talks about mammal flesh. It's possible scripture may detail (or allow for the possibility) that marine life ate fish. I don't think that would be the case, but again, it's worth going over Genesis again. However, you haven't provided any specifics as to why it's supposedly impossible for a meat-eater to eat veggies. Keep in mind organisms were biologically different in some ways due to pre-flood atmospheric conditions, though they were roughly the same creatures (save for size. They were a whole LOT bigger and lived longer). If you want to discuss the science, I'm game.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
You say that you studied and rejected other beliefs systems. I wonder, considering your age, how you could have rejected geology, the biological sciences, chemistry and physics in fewer years than it took me to just get a very basic understanding of biochemistry and genetics in my science degree.

---

I never said I had science degrees. What you're insinuating here is that I can't possibly understand science unless I study it all. You see this argument all the time in creation-evolution debates. The evolution science end simply stands up and declares the creation end is too dumb to understand the intricacies of science and evolution. I had 11 years of biology and science in high school where I learned the basics. If that's not enough for you, then you can just leave it at that. You can declare everything I say should be discounted because I have no college science education. If you want to continue talking about the subject, let's leave my lack of a diploma out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
(much as you accuse snrubb of doing)?

---

If Snrubb had 11 years of correct Bible study and could display the ability to even briefly check out his anti-Bible Web site's claims by reading a few lines of scripture, then I wouldn't accuse him of being intellectually dishonest. However, he didn't, so he has been. I think I've shown that beyond a doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
... because when our most fundamental understandings are so different it does become impossible to understand when you are coming from

---

1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

To be honest, science has nothing to do with evolution. Science is what we can see, test, observe, and record results about. Alternatively, I defy you to name me one scientific advancement we've had due to the theory of evolution. Give me one longer-lasting deodorant or one energy-efficient moped we've been able to give humanity because we understand great grandpa was soup. I'm not saying you're dumb to believe in evolution. It's a world view and it explains how we got here and where we're going. That's fine. Just don't call it science. It isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
Do we 'fully', completely, 100%, with total certainty know exactly and precisely what light is? No. But one can say that about anything.

---

Flawed comparison. Here's a better one: we know very little about light compared to what we know about other things in the universe. I think it's a fair point when you're arguing that light on Earth can't exist without the sun and therefore the Bible is scientifically dumb because of that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
What is this evidence? Even if there is some, the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence says that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old.

---

Why should I give you any of the evidence I know of (believe me, I have a lot)? You've just stated here that you're going to believe in evolution because the majority of scientists do. First, that's a flawed statement. Who are these scientists, who decides who gets to be a scientist, when were they all polled, and what exactly did they say? Second, I can dig you up plenty of beliefs all throughout history that were held by the majority and were dead wrong. Are you so arrogant that you think the majority, today, are the pinnacle of understanding, when all those before you have thought the same? You don't strike me as an arrogant person (I should give you lessons), but that statement smacks of elitism and I'm telling you, it's the same damn thing people of every generation have ever thought. "Yeah, those guys before were wrong, but us? We're it. We finally get it."

I do not have time to respond to each of these points tonight, but I'll attempt to do so tomorrow. I will say a few things briefly here, however.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anthson
you lack even basic knowledge of the very scriptures you criticize.

---

As I stated, I haven't taken Bible study (and again I'll point out, I believe 'bible study' to be the process by which some abstract meaning is extracted from the bible to make it sound less absurd in face of growing contradictory scientific facts). And maybe you're right, maybe the bible is like Shakespear, you can't just read what it says on the surface but need to look at subcontext, or something. However, when the bible says something like how light was created before the stars, that reads to me something like the following.

"In the beginning, there were no cars or any vehicles of any kind. I ate a salad, and then I drove to work. At work, I built the very first car ever to exist." To me, something like that doesn't make sense. But maybe we just don't fully understand what a car is, am I right?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anthson

To be honest, science has nothing to do with evolution

---

Except for that evolution is a scientific theory based on scientific evidence. In other words, you're wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anthson

Alternatively, I defy you to name me one scientific advancement we've had due to the theory of evolution.

---

There haven't been many practical applications of quantum chromodynamics, either. You're point is what? If you want to debate the merits of the theory of evolution, debate the scientific foundation. The theory is a combination of the process of evolution (which is fact), and natural selection. By analyzing historical data, and the properties of evolution and natural selection, scientists have put together a theoretical scenario of how tiny organisms could have evolved into complex organisms. By studying genomes, genetists have observed genetic properties in organisms that are in agreement with the theory of evolution. By the way, unlike popular catch-phrases would indicate, the theory of evolution doesn't say that monkeys evolved into humans. What it does say is that humans, apes, monkeys, and other primates probably descended from common ancestry.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anthson

Just don't call it science. It isn't.

---

Yes. It. Is. See above.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anthson

we know very little about light compared to what we know about other things in the universe.

---

We actually know a great deal more about light than other phenomena. Light is an electromagnetic wave, and electromagnetics is one of the most completely understood fields of science.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anthson

Why should I give you any of the evidence I know of (believe me, I have a lot)?

---

First, because that's what happens in a discussion. Second, personally I don't care because it's totally absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anthson
You've just stated here that you're going to believe in evolution because the majority of scientists do

---

I said nothing of the kind (actually, your position is the one that you just accused me of taking. I'll get to that below). I said that I believe evolution because of the majority of scientific evidence supports it, not he majority of scientists. As I've already said, evolution is a scientific theory based on scientific observations. The evidence supports the theory.

It's you, anthson, that's believing something because other people believe it. Mommy and daddy probably enrolled you in bible study, where the teacher brainwashed you into believing in the bible, etc.

As Bill Maher said to Joe Scarborough, "if you were born in Pakistan, you wouldn‘t be believing in Jesus Christ right now. You would be believing in Muhammad. So it‘s completely and terribly arbitrary, isn‘t it?"

First off, the acceptance of evolution and the application of evolution to research has lead to very many major breakthroughs in biology. Modern biology works on the premise that evolution is real. I don't have to give you any examples, though, for the same reason you don't think you need to give examples of evidence that the world is just a few thousand years old.

Now... as to why organisms such as crocodiles can't just switch from eating plants to animals relatively instantly in terms of existence. You do realize that creatures such as crocodiles and sharks have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years, right? Even a few thousand years back, when the world
was created (according to some), crocodiles looked exactly as they do today. Structurally, they are identical. Modern crocodiles cannot survive without meat. Prehistoric crocodiles could not survive without meat. I am not going to take the time to explain why this is true to you, since you would discount it anyway.

Evolution can and has been studied in microbes. Let me refresh some of that basic biological knowledge you learned in high school, Anthson. You see, all life consists of individual cells. There are several organisms who are simply a single cell. Then we have a few single cellular organisms who come together to form a colony. The next step is a multicellular organism. The more cells you have gathering to form this multicellular organism (generally, but not always), the larger the organism is. See how logical this is? I hope you're able to follow so far. (If you try to claim that cells don't exist or some such nonsense, I am going to go ahead and brand you as intellectually derelict.)

Given that enough nutrients are present, single cellular organisms and other microscopic critters multiply at an extremely rapid rate (relative to, say, macroscopic organisms). As a result, a given colony of microbes can create a larger total number of generations of its species over the course of a single human life than the total number of generations of humans that have ever lived. The effects of evolution -have- been observed in these microbes.

Now, let's go back to the fact that very many cells just like the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph are what make you up. This process still goes on in them. What is true on the microscopic level is still true of the macroscopic. Look it up. I'm sure your high school text books will help you. I did my best to dumb this all down to your level, Anthson. I probably wouldn't be bothering with this post if it wasn't for the arrogance you have presented yourself with throughout these forums. I've figured that I'd respond in kind.

Do we finally "get it"? Is evolution finally one of the answers we've been searching for? As it stands today, probably not. There is still more to be discovered, and evolution will need to be tweaked here and there. It is the concept that is more important, and the concept is on the right track.

As you've already acknowledged that this tends to happen in another post, we've come to the part of the argument that you simply cannot understand (or maybe that was way back at the beginning).

Let me explain the difference between the systems of science and faith to you.
Have people been wrong about major things in the past? Of course, but we get closer and closer to the truth as we go on, and we correct ourselves along the way. Eventually someone got it right when they used observational evidence to determine that the Earth is round. Scientific processes and understanding are always moving forward. People who put their faith in documents that are thousands of years old are stuck in those times. If you take the bible for truth, then you believe the same superstitions found in the book that people believed when it was written. It allows for no real change. Eventually (if not already), interpretations of its text will run out. Tell me. How does it feel to be primitive?

Bible study? You basically read a book known as the bible, and then decided that it sounded like a nice thing to believe in. Evolution, despite your claims, is not a belief system. That would require faith. There is no faith in science. It is one of the most recent results of hundreds of thousands of years of humans learning about the life around them.

In another thread, Anthson, you accused your opposition of being lazy. I cannot remember if this referred to atheists in general or a more specific group. I'm too lazy to go look for it. Anyway, I would like to put forth the notion that it is actually the "faithful" who are lazy. The ideas that are put forth as being scientific are the results of work that has stretched across human existence. You read your bible and choose to believe it because all of the hard work has been done for you. All of the hard questions can only be answered by a being who is conveniently omnipotent, omniscient, etc., etc.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vaer
First off, the acceptance of evolution and the application of evolution to research has lead to very many major breakthroughs in biology.

---

I'm sorry. I don't see any. Name me some we would not have arrived at if we did knot "know" our ancestors were soup.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vaer
Now... as to why organisms such as crocodiles can't just switch from eating plants to animals relatively instantly in terms of existence. You do realize that creatures such as crocodiles and sharks have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years, right?

---

How is it you're so sure of this? Sharks don't even fossilize whole. All we find are their jaws.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vaer
Evolution can and has been studied in microbes.

---

Turn a microbe into a tomato for me. Please. Don't call it evolution if you start out with a microbe and end up with ... A MICROBE. I understand you're observing micro evolution. I will not argue this thing, which you call evolution, happens. It does not, however, prove the Earth is millions of years old, nor does it say everything came from soup. There are several other kinds of evolution far beyond what we can observe. You seem to think that because one kind happens, the others also must happen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vaer
Let me refresh some of that basic biological knowledge you learned in high school, Anthson.

---

No refresher needed. Like I said, I studied this for 11 years. I'm aware of the process that supposedly gave us the species we have today. Just because you can think up a chain from simple to complex does not mean each step along the chain came from the one before it. The major point is, you have steps along this chain where the final product is the only viable living organism. For example, the Bombardier Beetle. Get used to going over this one if you're going to debate creationists. Evolutionists love to tell how the giraffe neck evolved through natural selection so it could reach higher branches, yet they completely omit the complex blood pressure system that keeps the giraffe's brain alive all the way up there. There are so many examples of where the final product is the only viable living organism. Every step upward to it would not have survived to pass on its genetic information.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vaer
(If you try to claim that cells don't exist or some such nonsense, I am going to go ahead and brand you as intellectually derelict.)

---

Uh ... yeah. There are people that don't think cells exist?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vaer
If you take the bible for truth, then you believe the same superstitions found in the book that people believed when it was written.

---

You're starting with the assumption that you know the Bible is wholly untrue. However, we're not discussing the Bible. We're discussing the origin of life and the age of the Earth. The Bible really should have nothing to do with this conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vaer
You basically read a book known as the bible, and then decided that it sounded like a nice thing to believe in.

---

You know nothing about me or how I came to my conclusions. What on Earth makes you think you're an expert when it comes to my life and my choices? Your arrogance here is just boiling.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vaer
Evolution, despite your claims, is not a belief system. That would require faith. There is no faith in science.

---

Sir, evolution (other than micro-evolution, which I talked about earlier) is not science. I think I've already demonstrated science is what we can see, observe, test, and record results on. Evolution is a convenient GUESS that allows people to comfortably believe there's no creator.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vaer
In another thread, Anthson, you accused your opposition of being lazy. I cannot remember if this referred to atheists in general or a more specific group. I'm too lazy to go look for it. Anyway, I would like to put forth the notion that it is actually the "faithful" who are lazy.

---

Thank you for that brilliantly stunning revelation. Is there anything else you'd like to state for the record? Your favorite color, perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vaer
You read your bible and choose to believe it because all of the hard work has been done for you. All of the hard questions can only be answered by a being who is conveniently omnipotent, omniscient, etc., etc.

---

So you're basically admitting it's really hard to come up with a framework for how the world exists without God, but that what we have is the best we can do and we should go with it? Also, how do you know why I believe my Bible? Again, are you some sort of expert mind reader stalker that's been pilfering my feelings and studying my life choices for 24 years? Tell me, if you see me, and you make all sorts of wild assumptions about me because you strongly disagree with my world view ... what's to stop you from doing the same thing with something else? Something like science?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub It's you, anthson, that's believing something because other people believe it. Mommy and daddy probably enrolled you in bible study, where the teacher brainwashed you into believing in the bible, etc.

---

Sheesh. You can cut the elitism in this topic with a KNIFE. Again, who made you the tell-all expert on my life? How do you even come CLOSE to divining that I believe something because other people believe it? Do you know the history of my parents? My youth? Do you know where I went to school or whether or not I had sex before marriage? Tell me which drugs I did in high school. I'd like a count of how many Christian friends I had.

You know nothing and your assumptions only prove to everyone how easily you jump to wild, baseless conclusions.

Claim CB325:
A giraffe's heart must be quite large (it is over 24 lbs) to pump blood to the giraffe's head. A series of special one-way valves in the neck regulates blood flow, and there is a special net of elastic blood vessels at the base of the brain. Without these valves and elastic blood vessels, the blood pressure in the giraffe's head would be immense when it bends over, enough to cause brain damage. All of these features -- large heart, valves in the jugular vein, and wondernet of vessels -- must be in place simultaneously or the giraffe would die. They could not have evolved gradually.
Source:
Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon, 1989. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins (2nd ed.). Dallas, TX: Haughton, pp. 69-72.
Setterfield, Barry, 1998. Birds, beetles, and life. http://www.setterfield.org/essays/giraffe.html
Response:

1. Darwin answered this claim in 1868 (206). The claim assumes that "gradually" must mean "one at a time." Not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.


References:

1. Darwin, Charles, 1868. Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, vol. 2, chpt. 20. London: John Murray. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/char...riation20.html

Further Reading:
Gould, Stephen J., 1998. The tallest tale. In: Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, New York: Three Rivers Press, 301-318.

***
Richard Dawkins writes the following in his book, The Blind Watchmaker (Norton, New York, 1987, pp. 86-87):

Anti-evolution propaganda is full of alleged examples of complex systems that 'could not possibly' have passed through a gradual series of intermediates. This is often just another case of the rather pathetic 'Argument from Personal Incredulity' that we met in Chapter 2. Immediately after the section on the eye, for example, The Neck of the Giraffe goes on to discuss the bombardier beetle, which


"squirts a lethal mixture of hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide into the face of its enemy. These two chemicals, when mixed together, literally explode. So in order to store them inside its body, the Bombardier Beetle has evolved a chemical inhibitor to make them harmless. At the moment the beetle squirts the liquid out of its tail, an anti-inhibitor is added to make the mixture explosive once again. The chain of events that could have led to the evolution of such a complex, coordinated and subtle process is beyond biological explanation on a simple step-by-step basis. The slightest alteration in the chemical balance would result immediately in a race of exploded beetles."

A biochemist colleague has kindly provided me with a bottle of hydrogen peroxide, and enough hydroquinone for 50 bombardier beetles. I am now about to mix the two together. According to the above, they will explode in my face. Here goes...

Well, I'm still here. I poured the hydrogen peroxide into the hydroquinone, and absolutely nothing happened. It didn't even get warm. Of course I knew it wouldn't: I'm not that foolhardy! The statement that 'these two chemicals, when mixed together, literally explode', is, quite simply, false, although it is regularly repeated throughout creationist literature. If you are curious about the bombardier beetle, by the way, what actually happens is as follows. It is true that it squirts a scaldingly hot mixture of hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone at enemies. But hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone don't react violently together unless a catalyst is added. This is what the bombardier beetle does. As for the evolutionary precursors of the system, both hydrogen peroxide and various kinds of quinones are used for other purposes in body chemistry. The bombardier beetle's ancestors simply pressed into different service chemicals that already happened to be around. That's often how evolution works.

***

This isn't my work, and can be found easily online.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
Except for that evolution is a scientific theory based on scientific evidence. In other words, you're wrong.

---

Theories about the structure of the solar system (though it wasn't called "solar system" then) were scientific and based on scientific observation too, and yet there were theories that required the earth at the center and the planets moving in epicycles. These theories were disproved. That's science - not that we get it right first time, but that people are willing to challenge other people's views. And the form of that challenge has to be, in the literal sense, scientific: it has to involve observation in the here-and-now. You test a hypothesis by devising an experiment where, should your theory be true, THIS will happen, and should it be false, THAT will. That's science. There is actually no way to be scientific about the past - only about the evidence that now resides in the present.

The theory of evolution is based on a bit of scientific evidence and a bit of scientific conjecture. There's no way to test it directly, but only ways of looking at the evidence we see today.

Frankly, a discussion of this nature will not only never converge to any kind of consensus, but will not even progress the slightest amount to that end. People of faith do not place a high degree of value on evidence or reason. If someone takes that as an insult that's too bad, but it's true. Faith is belief that's not based on proof.

If people want to debate evolution or the creation of the earth on purely scientific grounds, that's fine, but the necessary foundation of scientific knowledge to follow the scientific arguments is rather great. Personally, I don't want to give a week long lecture on underlying scientific principles before the debate can even begin. This is the same reason I have never started a thread on global warming. People who lack scientific knowledge will simply not understand the arguments until they are educated.

A debate on the merits of the creationist belief, or any other belief without proof is difficult, because they lack any merits to debate. Either one believes, or they do not. Evidence or reason cannot be used to endorse a viewpoint of this nature, because as soon as any evidence or reason exists, it collapses to a scientific debate, and not a spiritual one.

This will probably be my last post on the matter because I just don't think anything I can say will have even the slightest influence on anything.

Both creation and evolution are theories, and one cannot PROVE either. We are on the same ground. By the nature of the human mind, we start with a theory and then look for evidence to support it.

You do an excellent job of filtering what you actually read and comprehend in other people's posts.

There is no point in pointing you towards the plethora of evidence that sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years. You would not be able to make the logical connections necessary to arrive at an intelligent conclusion, and so you would dismiss the evidence out of hand. You also conveniently left out mentioning the crocodile, of which there is complete fossil evidence.

Turn a microbe into a tomato? Given enough time, the proper building blocks, and a proper procedure, it would be possible. That's something we're on our way to working out, but it may not happen for another 100-200 years.

You know there is a fossil record for the giraffe and its related predecessors? There is even a relative of these short-necked giraffes alive today. Also, is it really that hard for you to realize that, in any species between the giraffe and its ancestors, the "complex" blood pressure system would have adapted simultaneously? It would have started out relatively simple and then became more complex as the neck became longer.

Umm, yes. Because evolution happens in the cell/s of microbes, it happens over time in the cells that make up your body as well. What don't you understand here? Your body is nothing special in whatever sense you must think it is. It is like every other piece of organic matter on the planet. It follows all of the same rules. The only thing that really is special about it is the way it is put together. Please don't take this to mean special in any sort of sacred/spiritual/whatever way.

Your entire idea on creation stems from the bible. It is entirely appropriate to bring it up.

I am not an atheist. I don't care if there is a God or not. For all I know, humanity will eventually be able to prove whether or not God exists. Evolution is not guess that lets people live without there being a God. For all you or anyone else knows, evolution is a method by which God, if it exists, operates. As a result, you'd be stubbornly opposing something that would allow you to understand your God better. Stop treating evolution like it's a religion. I'm also not saying that it's hard to come up with a framework for existence without God. I'm simply saying that it's hard. Period. That is what we are working to find out.

You keep talking about your 11 years of biology classes. Grade school through high school? Dude, you are the one who knows nothing. Try taking a genetics class some time. Something advanced. Anything that would give you an ounce of credibility.

I could be going on about my 13 years of being a Catholic school student and having scripture pounded into me year after year. The thing is, it's as irrelevant to this conversation as your "11 years".

Is there anything else I'd like to "state for the record"? Yes. I find it amusing that you attempt to call me out on something that was a response to a comment made by you in the same spirit.

The bit about the sarcasm and elitism was also amusing, considering I had explained in my last post that this was purposefully done. Anyone else would have realized this without the need for you to point it out.

What do I know about you? It doesn't matter. If any of it was true, you probably wouldn't realize it anyway. What I do know is that you've either convinced yourself, or allowed yourself to be convinced, that a book roughly 2000 years old is a written message from God. Believing in creation simply because this book told you to without any factual evidence to back it up makes no sense. You'll notice that the farther back in time you go, the more superstitious people are. The more superstitious people are, the more active the God/s is/are in the world.

As I've said before, there is no faith in science. At the present, there is also no science in faith. Looking back on all of these threads on religion/faith/science/etc. lately, it just seems to be one of the topics everyone will just have to agree to disagree on.

Talkorigins is a very useful website for those of you who wish to combat creation arguments. Every single "gotcha" I've ever seen on the threshold boards is refuted in lay terms there. For example, Rosuav's latest post is answered thusly:
"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.