I was involved in a conversation with a friend late last night and part of it involved evolution. A common thing I've heard and even said myself is that science is based on fact. To some extent this is true, but it is a view I feel is twisted a bit from the real truth. Science is mostly based on theories that best support the given facts. In many branches of science there are still, after hundreds of years, not enough facts in certain areas to step outside of theory. There are a lot of holes in science and evolution is no different.
It's important for me to separate the theories of evolution and the origin of life with what we know is true and what is just perceived as true by examining available data. There are a few factors that lead people to believe evolution is a process still acting on the development of our planet and all its inhabitants.

One of these factors found in species is the idea of vestigial organs still contained in a body. These are the so called 'leftovers' from the evolutionary process. The argument is that we have organs and tissues in our body that we no longer use, or are of such minimal importance that we cannot find a reason for them. It is now my opinion that this neither proves nor disproves evolution. We must examine the validity of believing in a vestigial organ. In science there is a question whether the absence of test results is proof of anything. Scientists question if the instrumentation is flawed or simply not accurate enough to record the correct data. That becomes a messy thing to consider and deal with. It comes down to constantly updating theories around the supporting evidence, which brings us back to square one. A theory is a theory, and there is no proof that true vestigial organs exist. Under that consideration, the argument of the vestigial organ is invalid and useless.

Creationists argue that proof of evolution along these lines would be better found in the idea of nascent organs, or organs existing now that so called primitive versions of species did not have. This idea is flawed as well since the definition of evolution only involves change over time. Single organisms wouldn't go through evolution, but rather, changes in their chemical structures are believed to be passed on to the offspring, creating offspring slightly different than the parents. This change does not necessary involve betterment, but rather just adaptation to the environment you're trapped in. Evolution doesn't mean we would be better than before, just different and more adapted to the current situation. In astronomy, the fact that humans live minute fractions of time compared to the life of stellar objects is an ever-present truth. Cases of shortened sped up lifespan are gems for scientific study. This is an interesting idea in evolution as well. It is hard for the race of humans to study development on species that live life spans similar to our own or longer. There are exceptions ripe for study though. One of these is bacteria.

The study of bacterial growth has increased greatly over the last one hundred years. Strains of bacteria give a unique view of alterations and mutations because of their rapid reproduction. The mutation of bacteria towards a resistance to antibiotics lends many evolutionists to latch on to the idea as proof of evolution. I agree that there is valid argument here, but it is not as easy as it seems. The classical Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest is not proven by the bacterial resistance, but this becomes an excellent source for the study of the neo Darwinian idea of genetic mutations. Even as rapid as bacteria reproduces though, there is still only what is referred to as a horizontal microevolution as apposed to vertical. No completely new species are created by the mutated bacteria, but the bacteria are changing over time.

After researching, I found no evidence on either side of the argument that couldn't be rebuked by other information coming from the opposite. However, science is an idea based on what we know versus what we don't know. A theory to me is like a sieve. It has a lot of holes being created and holes being filled in at the same time. It also becomes hard for me to study science outside of all that I've been taught in high school. In high school everything is taught as fact. Theory is just a definition in the back of the book that if you're really unlucky will have to look up and define on a test, but what good is it to know the meaning if the reason for knowing is unknown? All science is riddled with theory and model which on large scale standards is constantly being updated or deprecated.

I believe after my discussion last night, and this small delve into the subject, that evolution is a word best attached to the end of 'theories of'. I find that the theories of evolution have become distorted in current years by the overextension of it into our modern society without the proper introduction. Somewhere evolution became the accepted theory to teach, but at the same time dropped the basis of theory into the trashcan. I feel now it is a good place to write about how religion plays into these arguments.

Many Christians want to think that Darwin is as evil as sin and that his point was to disprove their god. I don't understand this though. I'm not much on Darwin's theories on the origin of life, but I do still have a few sketchy impressions about our ever changing society. Even not believing, I could say that an all knowing creator could do one of several things. It could create a system of species that didn't change over time, and make it exist in an environment that never changed. This is not the case. Our environment changes drastically over time. A system of species would need to change over time to adapt to this diverse world that its creator imagined possible. Instead we get tangled in the seven day theories of Genesis. I argue that nowhere in the Christian bible does it say that we are stagnating and wasted, never changing over time. Seven days is seven days, but still an all together different argument I don't want to approach. Closing your mind to all theories of evolution because of this fact seems like a shame.

All the same, creationists and evolutionists go head to head to try and disprove each other. I feel this is a major downside to science that needs to be corrected. Religion should not feel threatened by science, and science should not feel threatened by religion. In my opinion, if a form of either threatens the other then that form should be eliminated. It is ignorant to assume science is out to destroy the gods, or religion is a lie that goes against everything science stands for. At the same time that I don't support the basics of religion, I find the idea that our society's science contains just as many faiths appalling. As long as theory is dropped from understanding, then we are losing out on the major point of science, and we are buying into a tangled web of lies no different than anything religion is accused of. We need less ignorance all around it seems. If we didn't constantly accept or believe things we don't understand, then maybe ignorance wouldn't be such a common occurrence. However, constantly I find myself holding on to ideas or even repeating knowledge I don't even have basis for. It's just never seems to end. I'd like to do a lot more reading on evolution and see where it takes me though. Two days ago I said I believed it as fact. Now I just accept it as a current model, maybe not an exact one, but better than anything else we currently have outside of creationist theory. There really isn't much supporting either argument, so it's just a mess.