Steve,

> Suppose a larger than simple majority of
> evolutionary biologists believe in God and a young earth and the
> Creation Myth in the Bible.  Should science then be amended to
> include such a thing?

Yes. I would look at amending 'moral science' which is what is also called
philosophy, or perhaps ethics. A majority of scientists believe in the
existence of God. Einstein was one of these scientists. The Creation Myth
has been compared to the most reliable and credible accounts of the creation
of the Universe by several physicists who actually can read ancient hebrew.
The key to interpreting the Creation Story is a code. Each letter represents
some meaning as it is disclosed in the sacred Torah, and also later in the
Kaballah. But as far as empirical science is considered, there are no
methods published in the Creation Story.

Steven Hawking believes in God and many scientists claim that their believe
of God is supported even more by their findings. Nothing new there.

Spirituality and physics belong to different domains or realms of knowledge;
that does not mean that there is a presumption that the spiritual beliefs
and physics are in conflict. Far from it, there are deep and interesting
similarities (cf. Ancient Greek and Hebrew Thought).


> The only implication is that many people have similar beliefs.
> Beliefs should not be confused with evidence.
>
Steve:
> Yes, evolution has been observed, both in the field and in the
> labroratory.  Random mutations in an organisms genetic structure has
> been observed.

No. Mutations are genetic phenomena. Evolution posits that these mutations,
which may on a few occasions, confer some adaptive phenotypic survival
advantage (it can often result in extinction later if climate changes too
fast), are only the 'mechanism' which allows evolution, but there are
different interpretations. In the case of Lamark he determined that
organisms can change their environment. Darwin held that environment changes
organism (or rather species) and there is sufficient (rather than tentative)
evidence that both interactions are in play (cf. Amazon Forests changing
climate, therefore facilitating the establishment of speciation). Also there
are other factors which are not exactly 'Darwinian' such as the human
species: we can change without mutations through our knowledge. And there
are behavioural forms of adaptation within species which may occur when
sub-populations occupy different niches or habitats. The Genome may not
change. Mutations are lethal for the organism most of the time, perhaps 99%
of the time, I think.

Try to seperate the difference here. There is evolution of species, but the
mechanism, whether strickly species adapting to changing environments, or
environments being changed by species, makes a lot of difference. Ultimately
Darwinian evolution will be around a long time, and so will some variant of
Lamarcks theory of evolution. Consult any soil scientist on how soils can be
formed by biota.

Steve:
> Still an appeal to authority, IMO.  Theories and hypotheses held by a
> "minority" of a field have turned out to be true in the past.  To
> rule out a possible explanation because it does not fit with your
> world view is junk science.

The point is that there are often finer and finer approximations to the
'truths' regarding the phenomena, and sometimes theories are refined,
improved, and sometimes these can be reduced and combined with other
theories. In the original ancient Greek the word for theory is used to
indicate a spectacle and a theory. The theory therefore is 'how the thing
looks'. A theory has a wide range of applications or varying emphatic
applications. To have a theory may be the same as to say I have an
'explanatory idea' or to have 'an expository' idea. The term idea simply
means meaning. The theory that the earth orbits around the sun has no
credible alternative theories which would dispute this, and this theory is
accepted as law. A law in mathematics is different. In this science, there
are laws of association, geometry lemmas, et. cetera.