re: Why are theories on evolution, climate change, etc sacrosanct,

*sigh*

I hate when folks give half baked science debates. It muddles the discussion so.....

But I'll comment on this as being emphatically wrong, simply because it seems to be a core tenet of the perspective put forth by you here:

quote:

---

If there were solid evidence it would be a law.

---

The issue of a scientific law has nothing to do with the presence of solid evidence or even the amount of it. Nothing.

Something is only a law if it is 100% inviolable, and calculated with mathematical precision. In fact, if you look into it, most scientific laws are actually equations describing behavior.

quote:

---

Evolution by natural Selection is but one theory of evolution. Do you have any idea of how many theories of evolution there are?

---

You are making a straw man of the argument. Furthermore, you aren't listing "alternative theories of evolution." You are listing evolutionary forces, which aren't mutually exclusive.

Except for the intelligent design listed under another name though. I thought that one was cute.

Evolution is the change of allelic frequency in a given population under time.

That's it. And that's as undeniable as rain. No one of authority claimed all elements of the mechanisms behind it are ironclad, solidified, and beyond reproach.