What Fool Would Call This "Science"?
 

?We may conclude that all the members of the vertebrate kingdom are derived from some fishlike animal. The BELIEF that animals so distinct as a monkey, an elephant, a humming-bird, a snake, a frog, and a fish, etc., COULD all have sprung from the same parents, will appear monstrous to those who have not attended to the recent progress of natural history. For this BELIEF IMPLIES the former existence of links binding closely together all these forms, now so utterly unlike? ? Charles Darwin

?The principle of natural selection may be looked at as a MERE HYPOTHESIS, but rendered in some degree PROBABLE by what we positively know of the variability of organic beings in a state of nature? ? Charles Darwin

?I THINK that I have become a little more skilful in GUESSING right explanations and in devising experimental tests? ? Charles Darwin

?I BELIEVE in the truth of my own doctrine THEORY"? Charles Darwin

?The mystery of the beginning of all things is INSOLUBLE (impossible to solve) by us? ? Charles Darwin

What does this have to do with porn? I mean, other than the fact that a large percentage of our customers are "devout" Christians. Thanks a lot for being closet perverts. We appreciate it.

You're bolding words that are typically used to imply doubt, sadly, those words are intended TO show doubt. Charles Darwin is adapting his language to speak from the point of view from someone who has not grasped a decent level of understanding of Darwinian Evolution. Even in the case of Charles using these words throughout his theory, one would deduce that the proof contained therein of the words supplied would by no means be degraded by using language which could convey doubt. Ergo, your point is non sequitur. Fallacious to say the least.

A scientific hypothesis is the preceding stage of a scientific theory. Charles Darwin made an observation, interpreted what it meant and followed with producing a hypothesis which could be tested. Science follows this step with every discovery made - instead of saying X works because Y, scientists suggest that X works because Y makes sense. Then, the process Y is tested to see if it is true at which stage the statement X works because Y is scientific theory.

Addressing the statement as 'I think' adds a somewhat satirical spin on the successive statement. Guessing is a tongue-in-cheek way of saying 'I have concluded this because it makes sense', as previously stated, this is how scientific theory becomes accepted.

A 'scientific theory' is by no means shadowed by doubt. In the same way that we have a theory of gravity, a theory of relativity and a theory of thermodynamic laws, the theory of evolution is accepted as fact rather than 'just a theory'. This is simply because of the terminology used by scientists.

Charles is being completely philosophical with this statement. At this moment in time it's impossible for science to tell you why things do what they do. Why does gravity exist? We don't know, we just know how it affects things. Why does or universe exist? We don't know. We just know how it happened.

Another point to address with this statement is the common delusion that evolution shows how life came about. Evolution doesn't shed any light on how lifeless matter becomes 'alive'. That is explained by the theory of abiogenesis.

Next.