[mbivert]

The problem is, conflating theories (beliefs really) with truth is one of the things reproached to past religious people. There's no shame in saying: "we don't know for sure, but this is reasonable so far".

If we don't, then we're sowing the seeds for discord for when our theories will need to be updated. And it's reasonable to think that they will, as, so far, most (all?) scientific theories has evolved.

IIRC, Darwin's views on evolution require patching e.g. to take into consideration chaotic incidents affecting mortality/genes propagation (e.g. asteroids, epidemics).

Maybe if that theory keeps accumulating patches, it'll end up very different from where it started!

[LegibleCrimson3]

The details, yes, but denying the fact that all life as we know it has evolved into what it is now from something markedly different is not at all reasonable. I'm not claiming that the entire body of accepted mechanisms and details about evolution are 100% accurate. I'm claiming that something being a theory is not reasonable grounds to disbelieve it entirely. There is no reasonable disbelief in evolution.

[mbivert]

> There is no reasonable disbelief in evolution.

Again, as I've said, it's a reasonable theory. Using the word "theory" isn't about casting doubt, it's purely about intellectual honesty, at least as far as I'm concerned.

The way it's taught is often in an absolute way. The way science is taught in general is in an absolute way. That's because humans struggle immensely with nuance.

Typical traditional Eastern views transcend this creationism/evolution duality for example; one more door to explore.