For the record, I do not necessarily go along with a Christian explanation. AFAIAC theories are theories. Heads of departments in Universities make them facts.
I’m afraid you’re rather wrong, Al: a scientific theory should never be confused with a fact. Wikipedia appears to be quite good on such topics:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature—that is, they seek to supply strong evidence for but not absolute proof of the truth of the conclusion—and they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings, leading to a more accurate theory. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[5]
As Eric wrote, you can see now both sides of the coin. I’m curious what alternative explanation you suggest.
- Do you think humans were already there, walked barefoot amongst stegosaurs and brontosaurs but mastered the fire, made pottery and cooked soups before the last dinosaur disappeared, about 65 million years ago?
- Or do you think dinosaurs were still roaming across continents at the beginning of the Neolithic era, about 10000 years ago?
- Or perhaps dinos didn’t disappear 65 million years ago, but about 32,5 million years ago and the beginning of the Neolithic is at least 3250 times older than the current estimate?
---------
PS: Most Christians, at least in Europe and the reasonable ones don't reject the evolution theory. Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a prominent evolutionist philosopher and anthropologist.
