Assumptions, theorising, opinions and speculations.
It's the utter reverse of science. It starts with the answer, then works backwards to try to prove it.
Evolution/creationism debate also raises the question of what science is. Our modern society is built upon the mythology of science as a pursuit of the certain and the antithesis to faith. But the scientific profession has always been about faith in a matrix of beliefs.
And the affirmation of that faith is limited to our technology and its ability/inability to show us an alternative to that matrix at any given moment. Zepplin is correct in saying: " In scientific terms, the amount of evidence is so overwhelming that the theory is an accepted scientific fact." This to me is the very definition of faith in the matrix, in this particular case evolution. It is "scientific fact" only in that most scientists have faith in that system. Not because it is a natural truth. It is conceivable that years down the line some physical piece of evidence or another conflicting theory will arise and convert scientists to some other view of evolution or cause them to revise what we take to be "scientific fact" today.
And Barney is equally correct in questioning the beliefs that compromise the evolutionary matrix.
I would say assumptions, theorising, opinions and speculations are a perfect description of science and especially the moments when a groundbreaking discovery forces us to alter our faith in the matrix. The image of scientific certainty is only plausible because of faith.
In Feynman's Rainbow, Leonard Mlodinow describes how Richard Feynman changed the accepted matrix of quantum theory with his diagrams and new mathematical approach:
"Feynman's approach was hard for physicists at the time to grasp and accept. The so-called "path integrals" he had invented to sum the paths were mathematically unproven, and, at times, ill-defined. [...]. Physicists demanded proof. They wanted a mathematical derivation of his formulae starting from the usual formulation of quantum theory. But he had developed his method employing inution and physical reasoning--- plus plenty of trial and error. He couldn't prove it. When he presented his method at a conference in 1948, he was roundly attacked by star physicists like Niels Bohr, Edward Teller, and Paul Dirac. They demanded the Greek approach [the Platonic belief in there being an underlying order to nature], and here he was, a Babylonian [ the Aristotelian approach--- the abstract or underlying order approach to nature is a myth or convenience; we ought to be more concerned with the phenomena we perceive with our senses]. Yet in the end they could not ignore him: He could do theoretical calculations in a half hour that took them months." (27, 29)
It's not wrong that science does start with an answer and then starts going backwards trying to prove it in theory and in experimentation. It's only natural that the scientific process would begin this way. But it is important to recognize the fluidity in science. It's the rigidity of creationism that annoys me. Not the idea that God is the source of all life.
