Jejudo, South Korea
Brad, if it could be wrong, then it can't be proven to be right. That's the way it sounds to me. Which would also say, you can't prove evolution, just like you can't prove creation.
It's the other way around. If you can't prove it wrong, you can't prove it right. Why? It is the same process that determines one or the other and in order to do that you have to accept the process. If you don't accept the process, you can't accept either conclusion.
Your main concern has nothing to do with the processes in anatomy, biology, molecular biology, geology, paleontology, botany, paleo-botany, chemisty, computer simulations etc. that point to precisely the conclusion that evolution is the way things work.
Here is one example:
As we look at the herring gull, moving westwards from Great Britain to North America, we see gulls that are recognizably herring gulls, although they are a little different from the British from. We can follow them, as their appearance gradually changes, as far as Siberia. At about this point in the continuum, the goal looks more like the form that in Great Britain is called the lesser black-backed gull. From Siberia, across Russia, to northern Europe, the gull gradually changes to look more and more like the British lesser black-backed gull. Finally, in Europe, the ring is complete. The two geographically extreme forms meet, to form two perfectly good species: the herring and black-backed gull can be both distinguished by their appearance and do not naturally interbreed. [author -- Mark Ridley]
From Daniel Dennet's, Darwin's Dangerous Idea p. 45.
This seems pretty good example that species change over geographical space, does it not? I assume, also, that you accept my earlier, "Superbug" example. Now, I read a biology textbook from a religious school once and it explained that species are defined as those who can mate with each other and produce those who can also reproduce the same kind (Thus, for example, donkeys and horses are two different species because mules are generally unable to reproduce).
If you accept this definition, how do you explain the distinctions between the herring and black backed gull, let alone a group of things that most people consider to be alive and yet don't reproduce by sex and still change?
Evolution by natural selecton explains these things quite well, and, at least, the traditional explanation of IDT or creationism does not.
Second, evolution by natural selection does not explain the origin of life. For that you have to look at some interesting experiments in the fifties on organic compounds and they can be created under certain conditions from inorganic stuff. We have not created life, but again the distinction between organic and inorganic is not, as used to be thought, one of kind. The two can connect.
Third, there is no Balance in Nature, the more we understand how eco-systems work, the more we study, the more we see that everything is in competition with one another. Contrary to popular belief, we are not the most violent species on the planet, we're actually pretty benign compared to most others (Of course, when we are violent, we're pretty good at it).
Forth, I have no problems teaching Creationism in schools. I do not think we should hide children from what people believe and argue about, I do not think we should pretend in America that science, religion, politics, or whatever should somehow be denied their place in trying to understand ourselves and other people.
I object, however, to the idea that IDT and evolution theory are in the same league until we start testing IDT in the same way as evolution. That is, start with an hypothesis and see how it works.
Now how do you propose to do that?
Last, the truth criterion that you ask for backfires in still one more way: it suggests that we stop teaching evolution in high schools (It certainly can't be in the university -- and I don't think it is taught except in high school now), it does not suggest that we give equal time to Creationism.
Oh, and you're asking us to be God instead of worshiping him. Somehow, I don't think that's what you intend.