For creationists: Why the model of natural selection is being used:

All I ask is that you read what I say with an open mind, do not take anything I say as a personal attack upon your beliefs and digest these words without a knee-jerk reaction because I disagree with you.

If you, the reader will maintain that simple common courtesy, I will do my utmost to continue to offer you that same respect.

In the scientific world, it's not a matter of if it's "right" in the sense that most understand the term "right. It's a matter of functionality. The current model of natural selection (and on a larger scale, evolutionary theory) is used as a model that eloquently, accurately and predictably can be used for other, more complex models to be built upon. Many bodies of scientific study rely upon these models to build upon, paleontology, genetics, botany and animal husbandry, just to name a few.

Those that wish to have the current models replaced simply (not really so simple) have to do one thing: Develop a model that more eloquently, accurately and concisely describes observations to allow predictability and functionality. So often people insist on "proof" (which in intellectual use is actually a mathematical term, not a scientific one). What's more, very often I see people insisting on someone providing evidence of a GENUS jump, not a SPECIES jump. This simply demonstrates the poster's misunderstanding of what natural selection and evolutionary theory describes. No proof of a genus jump should be expected in defense of natural selection, for natural selection never made this claim. It is nothing more than a straw man argument. (Sadly, most proponents of natural selection theory don't even realize this, hence showing that they too, do not understand the very theory they're defending.)

I can't speak for every proponent of natural selection and evolutionary models. However, me personally (and I'm certain the majority of the scientific community), I fully understand that these models are far from perfect. If/when a better model is presented, it will be accepted by the scientific body. Certainly, like any other revolutionary model is presented, there will be scientists that will cling to their paradigm. (I suspect this is why they're called "revolutionary" ... they cause an intellectual revolution. A civil war of the intellectual, if you will) It always happens that way. Has happened many times in the past and will most certainly happen again.

The thing is, until such time a a "more perfect" model is "discovered", this is the one that will be used. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.

As an example I'll detail the Greek model of the heavens/solar system.

They believed everything revolved around the earth. There was supporting evidence of this (the motions of the stars). It allowed them to predict the movement of the heavens. With the exception of the "wanderers" (planets). These were hailed as Gods because they "defied the laws of science/nature". Many, many, many early scientists attempted to present models of everything in our system orbiting around the sun and the earth rotating. However, because of their fascination of the "perfection" of the circle (ironically, their religious beliefs that the Gods would not create imperfection, hence, it must be a circle is what held them back) they were unable to make it match observation and provide more predictability than the currently accepted models of everything revolving around the earth.

Finally, a model was "discovered" where the planets followed elliptical orbits and suddenly everything matched up. Things that were at that time predictable were still predicted. Additionally, now the "wanderers" were planets as well.

It was a more eloquent, more predictable model.

After a short period of the temples throwing a fit because this was an insult to the Gods and many in the scientific body of the age clinging to their paradigms that old model was replaced with the new. This is how scientific models are accepted. Has been this way since the very first alchemists.

This current model of evolutionary theory might very well be (actually, probability states it probably is) along those same lines. It's far from perfect. Might, in reality not be the "real facts". However, it offers a model that provides functionality and predictability.

There are many that insist that since this model is not perfect. Since not 100% of the evidence we find doesn't fit into it as nicely as it should that it should be abolished and not taught in schools and universities. This would be a horrible error if this were to happen. Then there would be no future growth in these sciences. Children that possess the gifts that would create future generations of scientists (that might be the ones to develop a better model!) would be deprived of a mid-way starting point. They would be forced to re-invent the wheel when they should be working towards the cog or gear.

Current models need to be taught and embraced. Their flaws need to be evident so that a desire to find a more perfect model can be developed. Even if you've got some ignorant teacher that teaches this as "fact" anyone that possesses the intelligence that will lead them to the fields that would eventually develop a more perfect model will know better, or discover in their career that everything doesn't match up. With that said, very, very few teachers or professors state "the is 100% indisputable fact". Most state, "The model as we currently understand it." or something similar.

In closing, I hope my delivery was calm and clear enough that anyone who disagrees with the current model will be able to understand why, even if it's not perfect, why it's in use. I hope they will also understand why the current model can not be "abolished" without a more perfect model presented to replace it.

It's not about proof, it's about functionality.