Do you accept evolution as truth? It's the poll
I didn't vote (strike that).
The theory is correct in the main, but it is not impossible that new ideas might be added later. For example, the theory says that the tree of life descended from a single last universal common ancestor. If were later shown that a second population gave rise to another tree of descendants not yet identified or recognized as such, does that make the present theory wrong, or just incomplete? I'd say the latter.
But the basic idea that the life we see on earth developed over geological time through the process of applying natural selection to genetic variation isn't going anywhere. So while I see evolutionary theory like any other scientific theory - tentative and amenable to modification pending new discoveries rather than proven or the truth - I also consider the theory correct and having been demonstrated to be so by courtroom standard - beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable doubt that the theory is wrong, just an unreasonable one, that all that evidence doesn't represent the naturalistic process that Darwin described, but is a deception by a superhuman power and intelligent designer that went to that trouble to fool us. That only logically possible, but extremely unlikely, and can be dismissed as not a reasonable doubt. Unless you can come up with an alternate explanation for these mountains of data suggesting naturalistic evolution beside superhuman deception, it's one of those.
So what I don't like about the first choice is that I don't like the word truth any more than proof. The theory is correct. It unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture. That's how we identify correct ideas. They work. They are useful in the ways just outlined. And how we identify incorrect ideas as well. They don't work. They don't do these things. Think creationism or astrology, both founded on false premises, and neither useful for predicting or explaining anything.
What I don't like about the last option is that it is wishy-washy about evolution, as if this ide is just a placeholder until a better theory comes along. That's not going to happen. That's no longer possible. The present theory will become more fleshed out over time, but not upended. Like the heliocentric theory and the germ theory of disease, though we don't like to use the word proven in science if it is to mean the same thing a proven in mathematics, still none of these theories is going anywhere.
My answer would have been that the theory is correct and that it will likely be augmented over time.
OK, having said all that, I will vote. And I will combine those categories in my mind, as I assume that most people who voted for either of those options mean approximately what I do, and could have chosen both of them like I did. Presently, its 11 yeses and best ideas, and 1 no.
