Churches that refuse to accept theistic evolution are damaging to the children who go there.

A child who is told that only a 6,000 year young earth is compatible with faith will have a great deal of difficulty once exposed to the (literal) real world, when they go off to college, say.

Astronomy proves events that happened 100,000 light years away. Physics and geology show the million-year-old ages of rocks. Genetic similarity correlates with the fossil record.

All of these sciences are hands-on: things a student can test. all of these are completely incompatible with creationism. (Creationism would explain animals sharing identical functional genes. It does not explain identical broken fragments of genes.)

Once he learns that all of Gish's books--all the creationist books-- are filled with long disproven lies, then what keeps the student from losing faith entirely?

In modern physics you get more and more past a threshold where the science is theoretical (i.e. starts with the conjecture and then looks at the evidence to see if it is right) rather than experimental (starts with the physical results and tries to explain them, then tests with more experiments).

True, I added the qualifier "successful" in my first sentence for exactly this reason, and I should have included it in my last as well.

Newton did not *observe* that two objects mutually attract each other. No one has ever observed this first hand.

Right, nobody every noticed that things fell down until Newton told them they did.

When we switch allegiance to a new theory, the way we view that data has changed.

Allegiance?

you would be hard pressed to name many theories that came about before the observation of the facts they try to explain.

In modern physics you get more and more past a threshold where the science is theoretical (i.e. starts with the conjecture and then looks at the evidence to see if it is right) rather than experimental (starts with the physical results and tries to explain them, then tests with more experiments). But that's because a lot of physics now a days occurs in regimes that are simply difficult to observe.

But you are right that the majority of historical work has been motivated first by the observation.

They are obviously different, therefore incompatible. You admit this.

No, actually I don't admit any such thing. They are rather highly compatible since, for the fourth time now, Relativity reduces to newtonian mechanics in all but a handful of cases.

Science always questions itself.

Very true, but since creationists are supporting a theory that is ruled out by the evidence what they are doing is not questioning but attacking science.

Newton's theories about gravity were so highly regarded they were taken as the laws of physics. Then Einstein came along and taught us, once again, that holding theories as unquestioning laws is not what science is about.

And again- they can STILL be regarded as "Well supported theories" (which is what "law" really means) for 99.9999% of situations you are likely to encounter.

You are trying to pretend that what amounts to a minor correction was instead a "start from scratch" total reworking. It is simply not the case.

When you have a well supported theory it is pretty much a given that any problems with the theory will end up reducing once again to the original theory under the conditions in which the supporting data was collected.

There are always old sets of data. When we switch allegiance to a new theory, the way we view that data has changed.

You want to say it has not. I strongly disagree with this.

It's like one of those pictures where you can see a duck or a rabbit. Where once we saw a duck when looking at the data, we now see a rabbit.

Of course, whether the theory is a good one or not will depend on what it predicts and how well those predictions bear out.

What's being neglected is that the supposed *fact* could not be observed without the theory. Otherwise, it's the tail wagging the dog.

Most successful theories are an explanation of a previously observed fact that could not be explained by previously available theories. Newton observed gravity first, Einstein observed the relative speed of light first, Darwin observed evolutionary change first, you would be hard pressed to name many theories that came about before the observation of the facts they try to explain.

They are obviously different, therefore incompatible.
...
Newton's theories about gravity were so highly regarded they were taken as the laws of physics. Then Einstein came along and taught us, once again, that holding theories as unquestioning laws is not what science is about.

Different!=Incompatible. Newton's theories were never considered a 100% explanation for gravity. Einstein came and filled in some of where it was lacking, but even Relativity isn't considered a 100% explanation, and many people have filled in where Relativity was lacking. An incomplete theory is not an incorrect theory, and nothing in Relativity invalidated anything in Newtonian gravitation theory.

One of the things that never ceases to amaze me about those who support creationism, intelligent design and oppose the concept of evolution is that they are amazing hypocrites. They will say things like, “Evolution is only a theory.” No. This. Is. Wrong. Evolution–i.e. that organisms change at a genetic level–is an observed fact.

What's being neglected is that the supposed *fact* could not be observed without the theory. Otherwise, it's the tail wagging the dog.

When a new theory comes about it nearly always allows us to *see* things we might never have imagined to look for before.

I honestly don't know where you are getting this stuff from, but it sounds a bit like David Stove. You should read Rafe Champion's review of his book, which is here:
http://www.the-rathouse.com/AnythingGoes.html

To put it another way there is a subset of B that is so close to the set A as to be indistinguishable to all but the most sensitive of experiments.

They are obviously different, therefore incompatible. You admit this.

The point is that science works with conjectures, not dogma. Whether we are talking about the theory that pennies always fall or evolution, science deals with theories. Science always questions itself. That is not a vice, but the beauty of science. So many people are so anxious to stomp out what they view as the evils of religion that they abuse science by trying to make it to be more than it is supposed to be.

Newton's theories about gravity were so highly regarded they were taken as the laws of physics. Then Einstein came along and taught us, once again, that holding theories as unquestioning laws is not what science is about.

To quote Karl Popper, the 20th century's greatest philosopher of science:

Let me point this out first for the best kind of human knowledge we have; that is, for scientific knowledge. I assert that scientific knowledge is essentially conjectural or hypothetical. Take as an example classical Newtonian mechanics. There never was a more successful theory. If repeated observational success could establish a theory, it would have established Newton's theory. Yet Newton's theory was superseded in the field of astronomy by Einstein's theory, and in the atomic field by quantum theory. And almost all physicists think now that Newtonian classical mechanic is no more than a marvellous conjecture, a strangely successful hypothesis, and a staggeringly good approximation to the truth.

http://cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/PH29A/popper.html

From Newton's theories (given initial conditions) there are logical conclusions that follow about the world. Say set A.

From Einstein's theories (given initial conditions) there are logical conclusions that follow about the world. Say set B.

Set B contains an accurate description of Uranas's orbit (as best we can tell). Set A does not.

Set A and set B are not compatible.

Sets A and B overlap for virtually everything you will observe in real life. The only places where they diverge is at some pretty esoteric limits. To put it another way there is a subset of B that is so close to the set A as to be indistinguishable to all but the most sensitive of experiments.

So is B wrong then? "Incomplete" would be a much better way of saying it. Or if you study phusics you call A the first order approximation. B is the second order approximation.

And Kathryn,
I really don't know how God did it, created the world. But I do have faith that He did indeed do it. And I can recognize an atheist when he says that evolution is fact, which it is not. Heck ask Steve yourself if he is! He's a flaming liberal as well, another big strike against him. Heck I bet he is also pro-abortion! Now there is an evolutionary concept: killed your species unborn children as defenseless fetuses in the womb simply because of convenience. Hey Grewgills! Maybe this would be one of those "observable" instances of evolution! Of course, it would have to be termed backwards evolution.

Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics.[11] It is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces, with the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.[12][13] This reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length,[14] where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required. Many believe the complete theory to be string theory,[15] or more currently M Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Gravity_and_quantum_mechanics

It is always best to cite your sources, Christopher, that way nobody is confused into thinking that you actually understand what you posted. If you did understand what you posted, you would also know that even though we have observed the force-carrying particles of every other force, the existence of the graviton is still only theoretical, it has not been observed.

Evolution has been "repeatedly observed in and out of the lab"? Huh?

I know you are not serious but here are some to get you started. A previous link also provides much the same examples from the same source.