Anyone catch it?

[NightLad]

While I will not touch on the the "religious/scientific debate" itself (I've no desire to go there), I will address a common misunderstanding found therein:

A theory is a scientific model that is supported by empirical data; DNA, genetic transference models, bones of our primitive ancestors as linked through simple biology, carbon dating of fossils ,etc.

The Theory of Evolution is a 'scientific theory' because it meets this onus.

Creationism, on the other hand, regardless from what religion is originates, is not a Theory. It is a faith-based hypothesis.

In the vast majority of debates about Creationism/ID vs. Scientific Theory [of Evolution], people use the word theory synonymously with hypothesis, and this just isn't the case. I have no issue with religious people (one of my best friends is completing his PhD in Theology on his way to becoming a Priest), and I have no issue with non-religious folks* (my sister is devout Atheist), but I do have an issue with claiming a Scientific Theory is on par with a faith-based Hypothesis. I don't think that misrepresenting any side of an argument is beneficial to the debate.

(And I am not suggesting that there are no religious scientists out there.)

Personally I believe that a little evolution vs. religion debate is within the context of this discussion re: genetic engineered morphs. Maybe the mods will disagree and remove these posts, I don't know. Either way, for many people the thought of engineering natural traits does conflict with deeply held beliefs; moral, ethical, and even spiritual. If we are going to discuss the topic, we must acknowledge the diverse opinions people may bring to the table. (Although I will agree that the topic can be a slippery one.)