Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[stavros_388]

It sure makes it easy to support your opinion if you don't allow any other views to be entered.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

I'm not supporting anything here, only showing the vast amount of concerns with the idea of evolution.  As a Christian, one should entertain Christian teaching.  Otherwise, church is little more than a social group.

Christian teaching is good. But if it enters into the spheres of science or history, and there bumps up against contradictory facts, one or the other has to give. As has been pointed out repeatedly throughout this thread, the Orthodox Church does not hold to a dogmatic stance regarding biological evolution. Literal belief in the creation account of Genesis does not a Christian make.

Tell you what, you believe in evolution.  I'll believe in something bigger.

This is the either/or thing I was talking about. I believe in evolution ('cause it's a fact) AND something bigger!

 

[Kerdy]

It sure makes it easy to support your opinion if you don't allow any other views to be entered.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

I'm not supporting anything here, only showing the vast amount of concerns with the idea of evolution.  As a Christian, one should entertain Christian teaching.  Otherwise, church is little more than a social group.

Christian teaching is good. But if it enters into the spheres of science or history, and there bumps up against contradictory facts, one or the other has to give. As has been pointed out repeatedly throughout this thread, the Orthodox Church does not hold to a dogmatic stance regarding biological evolution. Literal belief in the creation account of Genesis does not a Christian make.

Tell you what, you believe in evolution.  I'll believe in something bigger.

This is the either/or thing I was talking about. I believe in evolution ('cause it's a fact) AND something bigger!

Okay.

I believe in God.

 

[stavros_388]

It sure makes it easy to support your opinion if you don't allow any other views to be entered.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

I'm not supporting anything here, only showing the vast amount of concerns with the idea of evolution.  As a Christian, one should entertain Christian teaching.  Otherwise, church is little more than a social group.

Christian teaching is good. But if it enters into the spheres of science or history, and there bumps up against contradictory facts, one or the other has to give. As has been pointed out repeatedly throughout this thread, the Orthodox Church does not hold to a dogmatic stance regarding biological evolution. Literal belief in the creation account of Genesis does not a Christian make.

Tell you what, you believe in evolution.  I'll believe in something bigger.

This is the either/or thing I was talking about. I believe in evolution ('cause it's a fact) AND something bigger!

Okay.

I believe in God.

Yep. Me, too.

 

[TheTrisagion]

Me three!

Well, most of the time.  Lord, help my unbelief!

 

[Dionysii]

...be open to at least understand the opposing view.  What I have seen a lot in this tread is angry reaction.  "What?  You don't evolution?  What kind of imbecile are you?"  That's the mentality I find in abundance here.

Welcome to the club.  I caught the same flack for my steadfast belief that the earth is flat.

 

[pmpn8rGPT]

be open to at least understand the opposing view.  What I have seen a lot in this tread is angry reaction.  "What?  You don't evolution?  What kind of imbecile are you?"  That's the mentality I find in abundance here.

Some of the stuff I have read in this thread is what I would expect an Atheist to say.

 

[Opus118]

...be open to at least understand the opposing view.  What I have seen a lot in this tread is angry reaction.  "What?  You don't evolution?  What kind of imbecile are you?"  That's the mentality I find in abundance here.

Welcome to the club.  I caught the same flack for my steadfast belief that the earth is flat.

Yes, that would be an incredibly hard sell. I did appreciate your post about Peter Kropotkin above.

 

[Dionysii]

Some of the stuff I have read in this thread is what I would expect an Atheist to say.

I have long believed that the alleged inaccuracy of the old Julian calendar which constitutes the Gregorian calendar's excuse for existence is in fact a brazen lie and demonstrably false.  One way to test the difference is to clock the length of time the sun is in the sky on the solstices of the two calendars.  For the record, the winter solstice according to Christian tradition is and always will be 25 December according to the Julian Calendar.***  If such a simple test shows that 7 January N.S. (i.e. 25 Decembre O.S.) is actually a shorter day than 21 Decembre N.S., then the entire Gregorian calendar is proved to be mathematically, astronomically, and physically false.  

I once had an argument with an atheist about this issue and cornered him into this falsifiable test, and he made this remarkable confession:
"I realize that I am shooting myself in the foot here, but I have faith that the scientific community is not lying to us about basic astronomical data."
however, I have found that facts pertaining to modern astronomy brought to light especially in books of the American astronomer Charles Lane Poor suggest precisely that.  

During an all night vigil in Katounakia in Mount Athos a few years back, a monk to whom I had previously mentioned this matter took a few moments to look up sunrise and sunset times for Mount Athos in an older liturgical book.  He did not find them for that time of year, but he did find a footnote regarding western Pascha which ended by asserting that the Gregorian calendar was devised "by the atheist astronomers of the pope."

*** 'An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith' Book II, Chapter 7 "Concerning Heaven" by Saint John of Damascus enunciates the dates upon which the seasons begin:

25 Dec - Winter Solstice - Birth of the Christ (same Day)
24 Jun - Summer Solstice - Birth of Forerunner (same Day)
http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactii.html#BOOK_II_CHAPTER_VII

This symbolizes that Jesus Christ is the light of the world.  From the moment of His birth, light began to increase.

 

[theistgal]

Okay.

I believe in God.

Is it your assertion that one cannot believe in God *and* accept evolution as a scientific fact?

 

[Kerdy]

be open to at least understand the opposing view.  What I have seen a lot in this tread is angry reaction.  "What?  You don't evolution?  What kind of imbecile are you?"  That's the mentality I find in abundance here.

Some of the stuff I have read in this thread is what I would expect an Atheist to say.

Me too

 

[Kerdy]

Okay.

I believe in God.

Is it your assertion that one cannot believe in God *and* accept evolution as a scientific fact?

My assertion is I believe in God.  This includes what He told man from the beginning.

 

[TheTrisagion]

Okay.

I believe in God.

Is it your assertion that one cannot believe in God *and* accept evolution as a scientific fact?

My assertion is I believe in God.  This includes what He told man from the beginning.

This is a rather suprising evasion from you, Kerdy. Usually you give a very straight up answer when given direct questions.

 

[Kerdy]

Okay.

I believe in God.

Is it your assertion that one cannot believe in God *and* accept evolution as a scientific fact?

My assertion is I believe in God.  This includes what He told man from the beginning.

This is a rather suprising evasion from you, Kerdy. Usually you give a very straight up answer when given direct questions.

That was a straight up answer, no evasion.  I said what I meant.  If I meant something else, I would have said something else.  She read too much into my post and made an assumption which was incorrect.  The good part is, she asked instead of responding which is done far too often.  For that, I am grateful to her.

 

[TheTrisagion]

Okay.

I believe in God.

Is it your assertion that one cannot believe in God *and* accept evolution as a scientific fact?

My assertion is I believe in God.  This includes what He told man from the beginning.

This is a rather suprising evasion from you, Kerdy. Usually you give a very straight up answer when given direct questions.

That was a straight up answer, no evasion.  I said what I meant.  If I meant something else, I would have said something else.  She read too much into my post and made an assumption which was incorrect.  The good part is, she asked instead of responding which is done far too often.  For that, I am grateful to her.

Good point, you are correct, you did answer it.  I did not read her phrasing close enough.

So to perhaps rephrase her question: do you believe that one can believe in God *and* accept evolution as a scientific fact or are they diametrically opposite to one another?

 

[Dionysii]

His last reply seems to indicate that he believes God has given all people the freedom of will to believe as they choose.

I believe a man can indeed believe in God and simultaneously believe that biological evolution is a scientific fact.
Whether such a belief is true pertains to a different question.   

 

[Kerdy]

Okay.

I believe in God.

Is it your assertion that one cannot believe in God *and* accept evolution as a scientific fact?

My assertion is I believe in God.  This includes what He told man from the beginning.

This is a rather suprising evasion from you, Kerdy. Usually you give a very straight up answer when given direct questions.

That was a straight up answer, no evasion.  I said what I meant.  If I meant something else, I would have said something else.  She read too much into my post and made an assumption which was incorrect.  The good part is, she asked instead of responding which is done far too often.  For that, I am grateful to her.

Good point, you are correct, you did answer it.  I did not read her phrasing close enough.

So to perhaps rephrase her question: do you believe that one can believe in God *and* accept evolution as a scientific fact or are they diametrically opposite to one another?

Of course they can.  Many here do.  I just don't understand how.  To me, they are opposed to one another. 

 

[Dionysii]

Welcome to the club.  I caught the same flack for my steadfast belief that the earth is flat.

Yes, that would be an incredibly hard sell. I did appreciate your post about Peter Kropotkin above.

Appreciate that. 

I understand that Leo Tolstoy was a closer friend of Kropotkin than Lenin and drew much of his pacifist doctrine from him and thence passed it on to Ghandi who was Tolstoy's best friend at the end of his life.  Someone told me the other day that Tolstoy's book of Confessions states that he originally derived his religious interests including his pacifism and traditional dress, etc. through interaction with Russian Old Believers.  I'll have to read Tolstoy's Confessions.

As far as Eastern Orthodoxy and the creation, I like Seraphim Rose's book 'Genesis, Creation, and Early Man':
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1887904255

 

[TheTrisagion]

Here is an absolutely fantastic blogpost that I came across this morning.  It states far more eloquently than I ever could the proper way of reading Scripture and it touches on, albeit briefly, creationism.

http://glory2godforallthings.com/2013/07/11/reading-the-real-bible-and-notes-on-the-real-hell/#comments

 

[stavros_388]

Here is an absolutely fantastic blogpost that I came across this morning.  It states far more eloquently than I ever could the proper way of reading Scripture and it touches on, albeit briefly, creationism.

http://glory2godforallthings.com/2013/07/11/reading-the-real-bible-and-notes-on-the-real-hell/#comments

Great share. 

 

[theistgal]

be open to at least understand the opposing view.  What I have seen a lot in this tread is angry reaction.  "What?  You don't evolution?  What kind of imbecile are you?"  That's the mentality I find in abundance here.

Some of the stuff I have read in this thread is what I would expect an Atheist to say.

Me too

Why?  ???

I'm honestly puzzled at this reaction. Evolution is a scientific theory that has been accepted by most branches of Christianity for quite some time - including, I thought up till now, Orthodoxy.

Am I mistaken? Must one reject the theory of evolution in order to be accepted as a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy? Please clarify.

 

[TheTrisagion]

be open to at least understand the opposing view.  What I have seen a lot in this tread is angry reaction.  "What?  You don't evolution?  What kind of imbecile are you?"  That's the mentality I find in abundance here.

Some of the stuff I have read in this thread is what I would expect an Atheist to say.

Me too

Why?  ???

I'm honestly puzzled at this reaction. Evolution is a scientific theory that has been accepted by most branches of Christianity for quite some time - including, I thought up till now, Orthodoxy.

Am I mistaken? Must one reject the theory of evolution in order to be accepted as a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy? Please clarify.

Perhaps they have heard that atheists have now taken to accepting that God guides the evolutionary process.  That would be a new development indeed.  But if it is so, Glory to God for all things!  ;D

 

[Kerdy]

be open to at least understand the opposing view.  What I have seen a lot in this tread is angry reaction.  "What?  You don't evolution?  What kind of imbecile are you?"  That's the mentality I find in abundance here.

Some of the stuff I have read in this thread is what I would expect an Atheist to say.

Me too

Why?  ???

I'm honestly puzzled at this reaction. Evolution is a scientific theory that has been accepted by most branches of Christianity for quite some time - including, I thought up till now, Orthodoxy.

Am I mistaken? Must one reject the theory of evolution in order to be accepted as a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy? Please clarify.

With respect, I do not believe I would be able to appropriately eleborate without causing offense to someone and since I apparently (without intention) have been doing this too much of late, I ask forgivness for not responding with a clariying answer.  But I will say, to my knowledge, evolution has nothing to do with becoming Orthodox.

 

[ilyazhito]

Rejecting evolution is not required to convert to Orthodoxy. There has not yet been a dogmatic definition about evolution, so all opinions among Orthodox are "theologoumena" or private opinions that do not require mutual agreement. However, if you believed that Jesus Christ only had one nature, you would have to reject that to be in communion with Chalcedonian Orthodox, because Jesus Christ's having two natures is a dogma. That being said, there are even modern-day theologians who reject or qualify evolution. Personally, I believe that non-human species could have evolved, but that humans did not evolve from primates, but received their souls from God directly and were created directly.

 

[Kerdy]

Personally, I believe that non-human species could have evolved, but that humans did not evolve from primates, but received their souls from God directly and were created directly.

If I ever come to a point where I accept evolution as anything more than an idea, though I doubt this will happen, your view is one I would have to take.  For me, it would be a compromise, which is something I rarely do in these situations, but it would allow acceptance of evolution.  However, this would be an unlikely scenario for me.  Evolution must stand on its own merit. 

I am curious as to why more people do not take your approach, evolution for all life outside humanity.  In truth, more people would likely be swayed to accept evolution on this premise.  I am honestly surprised this is not a more conspicuous presentation to get more people on board to accept evolution, but I am sure it will be in time.

 

[Asteriktos]

I am curious as to why more people do not take your approach,

Because it'd be both bad science and bad theology; in a word, the worst possible approach. Generally people follow the most practical and sensible way: throw their weight behind either traditional (both patristic and biblical) theology, or behind scientific fact, and then try to deal with, rationalize or ignore the difficulties that result from their choice.

 

[DavidH]

I am curious as to why more people do not take your approach,

Because it'd be both bad science and bad theology; in a word, the worst possible approach. Generally people follow the most practical and sensible way: throw their weight behind either traditional (both patristic and biblical) theology, or behind scientific fact, and then try to deal with, rationalize or ignore the difficulties that result from their choice.

My own approach is to trust the scientific consensus for science and the patristic consensus for theology.

When the Bible or the Fathers express ancient science it should not surprise us because God was not concerned with giving scientific revelation but theological revelation. The Bible HAD to express the ancient science in order to be intelligible to the original audience and we Christians in the 21st century need to get comfortable with the idea that although the Bible was written FOR every generation, it was originally written TO a specific generation.

With this approach both God's Word in Scripture and God's Work in Nature are reconciled and not forced into a false "science vs. religion" dichotomy.

 

[Kerdy]

I am curious as to why more people do not take your approach,

Because it'd be both bad science and bad theology; in a word, the worst possible approach. Generally people follow the most practical and sensible way: throw their weight behind either traditional (both patristic and biblical) theology, or behind scientific fact guess work, and then try to deal with, rationalize or ignore the difficulties that result from their choice.

Smart people do, but lets be honest, most people look for something to make them feel good about their place in existance.  Something which works in their minds regardless of whether it is true or false.

 

[Kerdy]

Contrary to popular belief, ancient people were not idiots.  In fact, I would say they were much wiser than we are today.  I have often stated if God wanted people to know we evolved from a different species, He would have told them and they would have not only accepted that, but understood that explanation.  The “incident folks were dumb compared to us” idea is false.  We are still trying to figure out a lot of what they did, how they did it, and how they figured it out with their limitations compared to us with our technology to help.  They were very, very smart and if God wanted them to know he used evolution to create mankind, He would have revealed that to them.  Not only would that have taken place, but they would have seen other forms of humanoids and engaged with them.  It’s an excuse to ignore ancient records and writings.

 

[TheTrisagion]

No one is arguing that they are dumb, it is just merely the fact that they do not have access to all the data we do and all the tools and measuring devices that we have in order to understand the world around us better.

 

[Kerdy]

No one is arguing that they are dumb, it is just merely the fact that they do not have access to all the data we do and all the tools and measuring devices that we have in order to understand the world around us better.

But that doesn’t really change much of what I stated.  They were more than knowledgeable enough to understand evolution, if it was true, and God would have instructed them in such a manner rather than the way He did.

EDIT:
Additionally, the problem isn’t creating a false ”science vs. religion” dichotomy, rather a true “scientism vs. religion” dichotomy.

 

[TheTrisagion]

No one is arguing that they are dumb, it is just merely the fact that they do not have access to all the data we do and all the tools and measuring devices that we have in order to understand the world around us better.

But that doesn’t really change much of what I stated.  They were more than knowledgeable enough to understand evolution, if it was true, and God would have instructed them in such a manner rather than the way He did.

One of the main ways we have learned about evolution is through the fossil record and also through comparing species from various points around the world.  The ancients did not have access to either of these, so its not that they couldn't understand it, they didn't have the info to evaluate.  It would be like expecting some tribesman in the Amazon to understand the Church.  He isn't stupid, he just hasn't been given the info by which he can understand.  The point of Genesis was not to help the Israelites learn about how the universe got here, it was to understand the nature of God more.  It does a very good job at that.

 

[Kerdy]

No one is arguing that they are dumb, it is just merely the fact that they do not have access to all the data we do and all the tools and measuring devices that we have in order to understand the world around us better.

But that doesn’t really change much of what I stated.  They were more than knowledgeable enough to understand evolution, if it was true, and God would have instructed them in such a manner rather than the way He did.

One of the main ways we have learned about evolution is through the fossil record and also through comparing species from various points around the world.  The ancients did not have access to either of these, so its not that they couldn't understand it, they didn't have the info to evaluate.  It would be like expecting some tribesman in the Amazon to understand the Church.  He isn't stupid, he just hasn't been given the info by which he can understand.  The point of Genesis was not to help the Israelites learn about how the universe got here, it was to understand the nature of God more.  It does a very good job at that.

I’m not going to argue the theory with you.  I stated what I understand to be true.  You are free to disagree with me and make exceptions to the way God conducted His business in every other aspect of life with the ancient civilizations and their people. 

BTW, what evidence would they need when God spoke to them audibly?  It was one on one discussion.  Like me talking with my wife.  That didn’t change for a very, very long time.  If I know a truth and tell you a story which is not true, that makes me a liar.  God simply would not do this.

 

[DavidH]

Contrary to popular belief, ancient people were not idiots.  In fact, I would say they were much wiser than we are today.  I have often stated if God wanted people to know we evolved from a different species, He would have told them and they would have not only accepted that, but understood that explanation.  The “incident folks were dumb compared to us” idea is false.  We are still trying to figure out a lot of what they did, how they did it, and how they figured it out with their limitations compared to us with our technology to help.  They were very, very smart and if God wanted them to know he used evolution to create mankind, He would have revealed that to them.  Not only would that have taken place, but they would have seen other forms of humanoids and engaged with them.  It’s an excuse to ignore ancient records and writings.

It's a free country, Kerdy, so I suppose you can dismiss the scientific consensus in astronomy, geology and biology if you are so inclined (over 99% of all scientists agree on the age of the universe, earth, and evolution).

However, I wish you wouldn't misrepresent my point- I'm not calling the ancients of Biblical times idiots for having a phenomenological view of science before the scientific revolution began in the 15th century A.D.

Nor do I dispute that God could have revealed any science He wanted to but in light of the established facts of modern science He apparently did not care to reveal modern science to the ancients millennia before they would develop the tools needed to verify it for themselves.

Given the worldwide phenomenological science of ancient times and the lack of scientific tools it would have been unverifiable counterintuitive gibberish to them regardless of their intelligence levels.

 

[theistgal]

BTW, what evidence would they need when God spoke to them audibly?  It was one on one discussion.  Like me talking with my wife.  That didn’t change for a very, very long time.  If I know a truth and tell you a story which is not true, that makes me a liar.  God simply would not do this.

What evidence do you have that God spoke to anyone audibly? (Wouldn't that be "hearsay"?)

 

[Kerdy]

BTW, what evidence would they need when God spoke to them audibly?  It was one on one discussion.  Like me talking with my wife.  That didn’t change for a very, very long time.  If I know a truth and tell you a story which is not true, that makes me a liar.  God simply would not do this.

What evidence do you have that God spoke to anyone audibly? (Wouldn't that be "hearsay"?)

 

[Kerdy]

Contrary to popular belief, ancient people were not idiots.  In fact, I would say they were much wiser than we are today.  I have often stated if God wanted people to know we evolved from a different species, He would have told them and they would have not only accepted that, but understood that explanation.  The “incident folks were dumb compared to us” idea is false.  We are still trying to figure out a lot of what they did, how they did it, and how they figured it out with their limitations compared to us with our technology to help.  They were very, very smart and if God wanted them to know he used evolution to create mankind, He would have revealed that to them.  Not only would that have taken place, but they would have seen other forms of humanoids and engaged with them.  It’s an excuse to ignore ancient records and writings.

It's a free country, Kerdy, ...

It is indeed and I freely choose not to believe in unproven scientism in the face of rejecting thousands of years of Christian, Jewish and Hebrew (biblical), teachings.  You and I have different definitions of what a fact is.  I prefer to stay with the original definition rather than a modern and altered version to fit into scientism.

Why is it so important to so many people to accept evolution and shout down those who know it to be folly?

 

[DavidH]

Contrary to popular belief, ancient people were not idiots.  In fact, I would say they were much wiser than we are today.  I have often stated if God wanted people to know we evolved from a different species, He would have told them and they would have not only accepted that, but understood that explanation.  The “incident folks were dumb compared to us” idea is false.  We are still trying to figure out a lot of what they did, how they did it, and how they figured it out with their limitations compared to us with our technology to help.  They were very, very smart and if God wanted them to know he used evolution to create mankind, He would have revealed that to them.  Not only would that have taken place, but they would have seen other forms of humanoids and engaged with them.  It’s an excuse to ignore ancient records and writings.

It's a free country, Kerdy, ...

It is indeed and I freely choose not to believe in unproven scientism in the face of rejecting thousands of years of Christian, Jewish and Hebrew (biblical), teachings.  You and I have different definitions of what a fact is.  I prefer to stay with the original definition rather than a modern and altered version to fit into scientism.

Why is it so important to so many people to accept evolution and shout down those who know it to be folly?

Scientism is the belief that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. It should be obvious that this is not what I believe since I am an Orthodox Christian.

Accepting the scientific consensus that evolution is a Theory, which is the highest level of certitude in science (e.g. the Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory, etc.), and a term only granted to hypotheses after extremely rigorous standards have been met- is not scientism. It is scientific literacy.

As an Orthodox Christian who loves the Lord and accepts the inspiration of Scripture, scientific literacy is important to me because I want to know what is true and do not want to put potential stumbling blocks in the way of potential converts by making the Faith look unnecessarily foolish as Blessed Augustine warned in his Literal Interpretation of Genesis:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]"

 

[Kerdy]

I am not going to argue.  People can believe what they choose, no matter how wrong it is.

And its LAW of gravity.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Theories:
1.  The theory of evolution is a theory (as opposed to a hypothesis) because it has very broad applications and explanatory power.   We can explain the entire fossil record and the genetic code of all plants, animals and other forms of life using this theory.  It is the breadth of the theory more than the amount of support which makes it a theory.  In fact, the day it was published (1859 by Darwin) it was already a theory, not just a hypothesis, not because of all the support (the support was still fairly weak at the time) but because of the wide range of things it could explain.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=theory%20law%20hypothesis&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.grossmont.edu%2Fjohnoakes%2Fs110online%2FNotes%2520on%2520Scientific%2520Laws.doc&ei=ayPiUfXpOIW-kgW7lYHoBw&usg=AFQjCNHe1KkFCySYux1fhLz4BvZkRNxzpA&bvm=bv.48705608,d.dGI

Strange?  Not really.  This is science.  Claiming evolution has been proven is scientism.  

 

[DavidH]

I am not going to argue.  People can believe what they choose, not matter how wrong it is.

And its LAW of gravity.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

Strange?  Not really.

I agree, arguing would not be time well spent.

Concerning gravity: when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other.

The Law tells us how gravity works and the Theory tells us why.

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

 

[Dionysii]

Accepting the scientific consensus that evolution is a Theory, which is the highest level of certitude in science (e.g. the Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory, etc.), and a term only granted to hypotheses after extremely rigorous standards have been met- is not scientism. It is scientific literacy.

I beg to differ. 
Leaving aside the legitimacy of Darwin's evolution or Pasteur's germ theories (of which I am convinced are both false), the process you  summarized is the method of Francis Bacon which opened the door to scientism and falsehood.  To the extent that the Baconian method achieved a consensus in Europe and America by the early twentieth century, it is a reign of error. 

Pasteur's False Germ Theory
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/terrain/lost_history_of_medicine.htm
http://www.greekmedicine.net/history/Medicine_in_the_Modern_Era.html
http://www.whale.to/w/appleton1.html

You effectively acknowledged that Bacon's method is divorced from truth in that it can never achieve certitude.  I would add that it deadens the minds of researchers into truth.  It accomplishes the opposite of what it proclaims.  Bacon's new scientific method is cited as the basis for enlightenment, but it in fact creates pliant zombies.  On that note, Arthur Koestler wrote an irreverent and iconoclastic history of the sacred cow of modern science entitled 'The Sleepwalkers'.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/44301572/ArthurKoestler-TheSleepwalkers 

History bears out that Bacon's method and the science of this elite "consensus" are false and degenerate. 
The old method of Euclid is tried and true from ancient times although neglected by the modern west.  Euclid's stricter methods establish sound laws - not theories.

The European renaissance was by and large the death of ancient truth.