rebdoniel: As I believe I mentioned earlier (or if I didn’t I’ll just mention it here) a scientific theory is not what you or I would call a theory- that would be a hypothesis. A scientific theory is more akin to what we would call an empirically proven and scientifically accepted dogma. It can be disproven upon the accumulation of significant data against it, but it’s not just another theory- it’s been scientifically tested.
See: theory of relativity, atomic theory, cell theory. Are these considered by you to be just as non-credible as evolutionary theory? Why not? They’re both theories…
And scientists still can’t really explain the Big Bang. So I don’t think that the inyan of yesh mi’ayin is really an issue, because where did stuff come from in the first place?
Plus, were they contesting Darwin’s theory of evolution bichlal? As in, no microevolution? Or did they only have an issue with the idea of our world as we know if having evolved? Because we’ve established here that microevolution is very real.