[John Doe]

Hi all, I am a first time poster after having lurked on this site for a long time,

I feel that there is a bit of confusion in this thread as to what laws are versus what theories are. My interpretation is that laws are presuppositions or axioms that are accepted as fact. Theories are interpreted from these laws. For example, mathematical theory is based on a set of premises or axioms from which we derive theorems. One example is 1+1=2. This is a theorem derived from the mathematical axioms or laws. It can be proven and is accepted as a mathematical fact, but it is not nor never will be a law.

If a theory doesn’t fit into a system, we can either reject the theory (eg: 1+1=10 is false) or we can add new laws (1+1=10 if we are adding the binary system of writing numbers as a law), or we can reject some/all of the laws. The last option is rarely used as in most likely will destroy your system.

The problem that I see in this and other threads like it is that you all have different laws that you accept as the basis for your systems of knowledge. Some of you accept logic, the scientific method, the laws of physics, etc. as your base axioms. Others have the additional law that there is a God who created the world as we know it, while others may have even more laws (eg: the Bible is the word of God and he created the world literally as it says in the bible).
For the first group mentioned, natural selection fits so well in their systems that many consider it a fact. For the latter group, not so much. Now they can either reject natural selection, add new laws (Gods “days” are not the same as what we consider days to be now), or they can reject some of their laws. Of course this would be difficult to do, as it would undermine their whole system of belief. Therefore, they conclude that natural selection must be wrong.

I don’t think that there will ever be a consensus on what the "facts" are until you can agree on what the laws are.