GATLING@SUVM (Keith E Gatling) (02/28/90)
Overloaded: Michelle did not say that evolution was *A* science, but rather that it was science...as in part of science. It is the same grammatic construction I would use if I were to say "Fugue is music," meaning (assuming a similar context to the discussion of evolution) that it is part of the discipline of music, and not that of art. So now in an effort to clear up this murky and rather emotional issue (and let's face it, when an issue becomes emotional, there is next to no chance for any kind of resolution), evolution is but one of a number of *scientific theories*, which includes scientific creationism. Neither one of this *is* science, but they both fall under the discipline of science, with scientific creationism also having a foot in the discipline of theology. You are indeed correct when you say that evolution is not truth because it cannot be really proven. That's why it remains (to those who are indeed honest about it, and not blinded by whatever ideology they may hold) a theory...a *possible* explantion of how things happened. Einstein's theories in the realm of physics remain mostly just that...theories...until proven or disproven, and most physicists admit that the jury is still out on them even though it looks like his explantion is perhaps the most feasible. Just thought I'd try to clear some things up. keg