the principles of world view

False. Science does not work on "belief." Science relies on evidence.Secondly, the theory of evolution does not depend on the method for the origin of life. The theory of evolution works equally well if 1) life arose naturally, 2) life was created by some deity, 3) life was seeded here by aliens, 4) life was transmitted back from the distant future, or 5) other. Makes no difference, because the theory of evolution deals with changes in the genome after life began. No science is "proven." All science is tentative. Within that caution, some theories have more supporting evidence than others. The theory of evolution is among the best-supported theories in science. Your "belief" is immaterial. Belief has no role in science. Rather, it is what the evidence shows. You are battling a strawman because what you don't believe in has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.Again, the theory of evolution does not cover, nor does it depend upon, origins.And from your scare quotes surrounding "so-called science of evolution" you are implying that the theory of evolution is not science. That is the latest creation "science" talking point, and it is false. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory because it follows the scientific method. Whether creationists like it or not, that's the way it is.And again, you are looking for "proof." Name one scientific theory that has been proved. You have set up a strawman definition and no doubt consider your argument superior. Perhaps you should study the scientific method before you make such statements.Finally, you say you want to see life develop from nothing to creatures able to reproduce. Again, that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. You need to seek out the folks studying abiogenesis or origins and harass them.I know creationists are reluctant to study science. Just last night I was told on another forum "...evolution is not science and is of Satan."But if you are going to make claims about science it would be much more effective if you had some basic education in those fields on which you are commenting, lest you appear as much a zealot as the poster I just cited.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This is another recent creationist tactic, separating "true" science from, I presume, "false" science.Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You are doing science if you follow the scientific method, whether creationists approve or not. You don't need credentials, rigorous training or fancy equipment; you do need to follow the scientific method.Creationists, on the other hand, seem determined to destroy the evolutionary sciences. This recent sophistry of separating the evolutionary sciences from "true" sciences is just one such tactic. And you fell for it.And its both nonsense and dishonest, start to finish. It is nothing more than an attempt to censor a science that creationists don't agree with for religious--not scientific--reasons. I've seen many posts on other websites suggesting that all of the evolutionary sciences be defunded (likewise you described evolutionary sciences as "worthless").This is all a part of the creationists' stealth efforts to destroy any science they disagree with, and ultimately to impose their religious views on the rest of us. But it won't work; there was this little event called The Enlightenment, and the genie is out of the bottle.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You probably should differentiate between scientists and engineers. This is not meant to denigrate engineers, but most often they are not scientists. In almost all cases they are not theory oriented but more hands-on in their approach.Most engineers know a lot of science, but often that is from learning what has been worked out by the scientists rather than advancing scientific theory themselves.Your mileage may vary.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Theories are "true" science--to the extent that such a thing as "true" science exists.A theory is the current best explanation for a given set of phenomena. To become a theory an idea or hypothesis must have undergone rigorous testing and must have made successful predictions. And, there must be no facts which contradict that theory.There is no higher level of explanation in science than a theory. A law is not higher, as theories explain laws. Proof is not a part of science; see the math guys down the hall.You seem be be laboring under the notion that the recent creationist talking point of purporting to differentiate between "true" science and evolutionary science is legitimate. It is not.Perhaps you folks should stop trying to interfere in science, eh?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I challenge you to name one scientific theory that has been proven "true" -- by scientists. And that is claimed as such -- by scientists. You might consider the definitions I have included below in your answer.Otherwise, you really should drop this "proven to be true" and "true science" nonsense. That is just the latest scheme cooked up by creationists to denigrate the theory of evolution. It might work with sympathetic school boards, but scientists know the difference--even if you don't.

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

​

Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.

​

The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!

​

So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source

​

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ”it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source

And lest you think I am just making up these definitions and that "true" sciences such as physics would never agree, check out the source for the latter two.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You write: But to those with a different world view, one capable of overcoming all evidence that does not agree with that world view, genetics means nothing when it contradicts scripture and revelation. Science means nothing when it contradicts scripture and revelation.This is the "world view" problem.When one's world view accepts revelation and scripture as the highest forms of knowledge, as I have seen some declare on other websites, then anything that attempts to contradict that belief--no matter what the evidence--will simply be ignored, or disbelieved!So, when one believes that man originated by "special creation" scientific evidence will mean nothing. Scientists may claim that "genetics just would not work without evolution" but if that claim contradicts a world view based on scripture and revelation it is obviously a false claim. Or, as I was informed on another website a few days ago, "I’m saying that evolution is not science and is of Satan." That is an extreme version of "world view" but there are folks like that out there.To some, scientific evidence means nothing, as they have accepted a world view that won't allow any outside influences (evidence, science, etc.) to penetrate.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.