re: #263 Wendell Zurkowitz ((slave to the waffle light))

I recall in the fifth or sixth grade being taught the Scientific Method in science class: how one starts with a Hypothesis and then proceeds to test it, and if that Hypothesis is consistently supported by independently verifiable results, then it becomes a Theory.

And when you encounter the “Evolution is just a Theory” argument, you realize how truly clueless these people are.

I think I’ve commented on a similar statement here before. You are not correct. A hypothesis is only for one particular experiment or observation. If it is proved correct, it adds to a collection of other proved hypotheses which together can be used to develop (or support) a theory. Your summary leaves out a whole shitload of steps needed to develop or support a theory.

As a reminder, I taught physics for over 20 years, so I really, really want you to get this right. If you’re going to debate science with creationists, you’ve got to be able to explain the scientific method accurately. Because, if you get something wrong, they’ll assume you’re just blowing hot air.