Why Evolution is science

Commenting on the opening post, Message 1: Evolution doesn't really explain "how the world got to be the way it is today," since that would also include geology. Based upon descent with modification and natural selection, the theory of evolution provides an explanatory framework for the diversity of life observed in both the living and fossil records. Yes, good point. And it's interesting to note that one of the problems with Darwin's original theory was that it lacked a mechanism for passing individual characteristics on to descendants. In Darwin's own writings he speculated about such mechanisms, and he realized that proposed mechanisms like substances in the blood would experience dilution over time and so were not viable possibilities. It wasn't until the rediscovery of genes, after Darwin's death, that the mechanism behind heredity was revealed. This is another good point. It isn't one of the defining characteristics of science, but it is one that experience has shown to be generally true. As new theory replaces old theory we find that our understanding of the nature of the universe becomes more and more refined and nuanced. It is rare in science that a new theory changes everything, though it was certainly true of continental drift and plate tectonics. The example of changing estimates of the age of the earth is much more typical, where at first we thought it was some 6000 years old or so, then 20 millions years, then 100 million years, then a billion years, then several billion years, then around 4 billion years, then 4.5 years, then 4.56 billion years, and then you get into arguments about at what point do you call a molten mass of accumulating material a planet.My own arguments for why evolution is science run along similar lines. It is natural, it is falsifiable, it makes accurate predictions, and scientists working in the field of evolution follow the scientific method, which includes the necessity for replication. Enabling other scientists to replicate results requiring publishing those results, and this takes place through peer-reviewed articles in journals.I suppose the reason the question of "Why evolution is science" was raised is as a response to the assertion that evolution is religion. Politically, I happen to be an independent, but independence is not my religion. Scientifically I happen to believe in the scientific method, but the scientific method is not my religion. Religiously, I'm a Unitarian, and I don't know of anyone anywhere who thinks of science as their religion, or who thinks science is a religion. This is just a silly, knee-jerk response by creationists who when met with the charge that creationism is just thinly veiled religion respond with, "Oh, yeah? Well, evolution is religion, too!" There's really no basis for it.--Percy