Changes

In 1980, Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by creation-scientists by affirming that theories regarding the origins of life on earth were [[science|scientific]] because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested,"<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1980|p=611}} as cited in {{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref> but he stopped short of granting full scientific standing to evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref>   

In 1980, Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by creation-scientists by affirming that theories regarding the origins of life on earth were [[science|scientific]] because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested,"<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1980|p=611}} as cited in {{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref> but he stopped short of granting full scientific standing to evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref>   

With Popper's equivocal stance on evolution not resolving the matter to conclusion, Douglas Theobald argues at TalkOrigins, a pro-evolution website, 30 major biological predictions of evolution, with "potential" falsifications.<ref> Theobald, Douglas (2004) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html| 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method.] The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-05-12.</ref>  

With Popper's equivocal stance on evolution not resolving the matter, Douglas Theobald argues at TalkOrigins, a pro-evolution website, 30 major biological predictions of evolution, with "potential" falsifications.<ref> Theobald, Douglas (2004) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html| 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method.] The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-05-12.</ref>  

<!-- Save for later while I investiage relevance:  a tactic that even creationist group Answers in Genesis suggests not be used as it displays a lack of understanding of what the word theory means in scientific discourse.<ref> Answers in Genesis website [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp| Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] Retrieved on 2007-05-12</ref><ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>.  <ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>. In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact <ref>Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24</ref> -->

<!-- Save for later while I investiage relevance:  a tactic that even creationist group Answers in Genesis suggests not be used as it displays a lack of understanding of what the word theory means in scientific discourse.<ref> Answers in Genesis website [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp| Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] Retrieved on 2007-05-12</ref><ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>.  <ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>. In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact <ref>Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24</ref> -->