Also, I understand the terminology of science. I just don't accept that that's how people are using those terms. People teach theories as truths and don't point out that they can and should be questioned. Then they get all bent out of shape when you actually do question them. This seems to be the prevalent attitude with many who discuss these issues. Look at Al Gore and his, "the debate is over" on Global Warming. No it's not you friggin crook hack politician! If it's science then it's ALWAYS up for debate according to the rules the scientists made about such things. Another example would be any show about nature or the earth. Every one of them talks about how this or that took place millions of years ago. They don't say, "And it's thought that this happened..." or "The evidence suggests that...". NO! They say, "Millions of years ago this took place" or "This dinosaur fed on these things". Those are assumptions and nothing more.
Al Gore isn't a scientist. The "facts" he presents are not much better than the "facts" some of the more extreme creationists provide (grand canyon was made by the Great Flood, the shape of a banana disproves evolution).
But it's completely fair to say "millions of years ago" because no other plausible theory exists that explains the creation of the universe, carbon dating, etc. Otherwise we'd also have to say that "the ball fell to the ground because the evidence suggests that two masses attract eachother. After all, gravity is only a theory, and could potentially be disproven.
There are simply too many things that point to evolution and other things that certain religions seems to think conflict with their beliefs. I can't help but think that evolution has many parallels to when people started questioning whether the earth is really flat. Yet today, there aren't many people that have doubts about that.
Basically it boils down to:
This thousand-year old book says this is what happened. Oh, and the dinosaur fossils were placed by God for some illogical reason.
- or -
An overwhelming amount of verifiable evidence that strongly point towards the process of natural selection. Sure, the model may not be complete, and it may even be disproven in the future, but faced with no alternative that can be explained scientifically, this is what we have to work with so far.
Note that I don't think that evolution excludes faith in God. Why is it not possible that God had the foresight to also create natural selection? Again this boils down to how literally you want to take the Bible - and I frankly can't see how it is possible to do so without knowing that *ahem* certain places could use a revision (references to slavery, the "pillars of the earth", "corners of the earth" etc.).
