Quote from kjkent1:
A "true" scientist will say that there is a limit to our present ability to measure the uncertainty of evolutionary change. However, within the limits of our present ability to measure that change, we have determined no pattern. Furthermore, we have demonstrated, via a simple algorithm, that information gain is possible, without the introduction of any external influence other than what we currently measure as uncertainty.
Give all of the above, we currently conclude that evolutionary change occurs under suitable conditions, without the introduction of any certain influence (design).
Is it conceivable that an external influence exists? Yes, but it is presently scientifically unmeasurable, THEREFORE, until it can be measured, no external influence exists within the realm of scientific investigation.
The analogy to the above is that the number PI cannot be measured with certainty. No matter how refined the measurement becomes, no pattern of decimal accuracy has yet appeared.
So, the scientist states that PI cannot be scientifically measured with perfect accuracy, but for all conceivable practical purposes, PI is measurable within whatever limits reasonably required.
What the scientist does NOT DO, is say: "Because we cannot yet measure PI with absolute certainty, we will refrain from stating or teaching that circles exist, because it remains merely a theory."
This is exactly what you're doing, Z. You are saying because we can't exclude the possibility of a pattern in evolution with absolute certainty, that we can't teach evolution as a fact -- instead it must remain a science fiction.
In your world, circles apparently cannot exist until the pattern behind PI is absolutely excluded -- and evolution does not exist, for the same reason.
