Call it what you wish, the word 'science' is from Latin, it means 'knowledge.'
Well the etymology of the word has nothing to do with the way its used today. The word "word" itself comes from the Middle English root of "to speak", but words are written as well as spoken.
It is true that 'science' can be used to advance all sorts of agendas which are at their core completely 'political science.'
No one disputes that. But the use of a scientific theory to advance a political agenda has nothing to do with the truth of a scientific theory. And before you make that mental connection, no, the Nazis took no inspiration from Darwin. In fact, they were more in line with the ideas that breeders use. Does that mean that the practice of purebreeding dogs should be thrown out?
As for one single 'mother of mankind', are you trying to say that many homo sapien mothers evolved from what would be considered prehuman at the same time or was their a first one??
A population. As it happens there doesn't have to be a single "breakthrough" or a whole bunch of identical clones getting the same trait at the same time. People tend to forget to think about evolution laterally as well as longitudinally (if you're a visual thinker like me). An individual gene had to come from one individual, but it takes time for that individual's children to multiply, so eventually the gene becomes spread throughout. It's an accumulation of small traits that over time become widespread because of the slight advantage they give.
I would say the theory of evolution hasn't met every single test because of the many gaps so far found in the fossil record.
We view the fossil record as one giant test. If there were problems we would have found them by now, instead we have found a couple of interesting facts
* 99% of all life that ever existed (from looking at the fossils we have) is now extinct
* Fossils are found in layers with other fossils, dated to the same time period. You never find rabbits in the precambrian (a time before complex multicellular life), for instance, and you never find dinosaurs before their time.
* Many gaps have been predicted to be filled by a certain type of organism which was later found in the time period predicted.
Sure, maybe I'm exaggerating by saying every "single" test. But as a whole, evolution has been wildly successful, more so than a casual read would have you believe. There are lots of things (like my whole post earlier on junk DNA and how chickens have the genes for teeth, etc) that you would never hear because 1) it's not interesting enough to make major headlines, 2) it's the kind of thing that you would only hear if you were a working scientist or someone who debates this kind of thing.
The theory that everything on Earth has evolved from pond scum, whether true or not true, still does not prove there is no such thing as a spirtual realm nor that there is no such thing as divine intervention.
"Pond scum" is a bit misleading. The early earth was in many ways as alien as pond scum but even the pond scum today is far more advanced than primitive life-forms. We're talking about self-replicating molecules of RNA. And I think you underestimate the time scale involved. Throughout its billions-year-old history, the earth has spent more time covered in bacteria than complex life. Full billion year periods passed by without as much as a single tree, until about 500 million years ago when the tetrapods emerged. One thing about evolution that is supported by the fossil record, once a huge barrier is overcame, there are many niches which are (relatively) quickly filled. Once tetrapods managed to adapt to the land, there was absolutely no competition. That's why it took only a hundred million years to get dinosaurs, when it took billions just to get a walking fish.
And you're right, there is no way to prove that there isn't a spiritual realm or divine intervention. But once you go down that rabbit-hole of entertaining the notion that divine beings are not only knowable but real, there is also no way of knowing which ones are fiction, either. Who's to say that Jehovah is made up and Zeus is real?
That is my central point: science delivers the goods, by giving a system where we can test claims. No other system on the planet does that. Science works because it can sort out the fiction from the reality. That's why the world is still confused over who God really is (if it even exists or is knowable), and no one is debating the fact that GPS works.
Another point, some of the most acccomplished and knowledgeable scientists in the world are still believers.
Firstly, it doesn't matter what smart scientists think, because an individual's opinion is not evidence of the truth.
Secondly, who? I can name 5 atheist/agnostic scientists for every credulous one you can (of both equal and superior prestige, might I add). And I'll go ahead and point out that historically belief in God was higher amongst all levels of society, scientists being no exception. The problem is confounded by the fact that the only people with any money were the church and royalty, and the royalty spent half of it kissing the church's bum half the time, not to mention the fact that calling oneself an atheist signing one's own death warrant for much of history, so it's no wonder that scientists were saying good things about religion. Even though you have a hundreds-year headstart on credulous scientists, my challenge still stands, because science over the past 100 years has made the other 300 look like a joke.
