We seem to be running off on a tangent from the original post, but I'll reply one more time before heading off to bed and letting the thread return to its original course. First I'd like to point out that in my first post, I did mention that not all people who believe in evolution are using it as a religion. There are some who truly understand that the theory of evolution is a work in progress, but few teachers teach it as such. Several high school teachers I have observed and all of the college teachers I have observed basically teach it as if it's fact. I believe that in those cases, it is roughly equivalent to teaching a religion.
I'd like to hear your explanation of why evolution follows the scientific method better than creation does.
Evolutionary theory follows the scientific method and reasoning. It's true, not all of the facts are in yet. Any good scientist will tell you that theories usually change, and true scientists are not against that. Scientists pursue the truth based on what they can see and observe. Based on what we can see and observe, the theory of evolution provides the best answers.
Actually, the verdict on both the theory or relativity and the theory of gravity are still up in the air due to the fact that they haven't figured out a way to prove them. Several experiments in recent years have cast doubt on the validity of the theory of relativity. I'll try to dig through my old magazines to see if I can find some references. The difference is that when I was going through school (past elementary school), they were very careful to note that these were indeed theories and that alternate theories existed. This was not the case for evolution.
You seem to emphasize that the theory of evolution is somehow less valid because it is termed a "theory". This is an argument of semantics. In science, many ideas we hold as true are called theories for a long time, because of the change mentioned above. Example--Theories you probably accept w/o protest: Theory of relativity, Theories of gravity (both Newton's and Einstein's), Cell theory, these are all just theories in the view of science.
I'm sorry, but I don't think that adaptation is evolution. I'll use cars as an illustration since I'm tired and can't figure out a better one. The evolution process is equivalent to a tricycle spontaneously becoming a dragster. Adaptations are slight modifications such as changing the shape of the spoiler to increase aerodynamics. There's a large difference.
Adaptation is evolution. Adaptation laid the whole groundwork for Darwin's theory. Adaptation leads to natural selection. Natural selection leads to advantageous traits. When one species acquires enough advantageous traits, it might differ significantly from its original brethren. When this happens, a new species arises, and evolution has occured.
I haven't heard of any of these "missing links" being found except the fake ones. Would you mind pointing me towards some references for these? I'd be interested to read them.
The fossil record is continually revealing itself. Lots of "missing links" have been and are still being found. However, the Earth is a mighty big place and we have only been looking for 100 years. It won't happen overnight.
The only ones of these I'm familiar with are slight adaptations which I covered above. Viruses are probably the closest thing to the textbook definition of evolution, but it's still a large stretch. Again, references would be appreciated.
Many experiments are done with organisms that have short generation times, i.e. bacteria and the like. They have supported the theory.
I certainly hope so.
Will evolution still be the prevailing theory on the origin of species and the differences between them in 100 more years? Who knows, but hopefully there will be people of integrity looking for answers.