Evolution is a theory that has stood the test of time, experiments and predictions so far.
First of all, there's not just one "theory of evolution." There the Darwinist theory, which is largely discredited; the neo-Darwinist theory, which is the most accepted; and the punctuated equilibrium theory, which explains some problems with the neo-Darwinist but has problems of its own.
Second of all, there are some serious gaps in and problems with the evidence for evolution -- specifically macroevolution.
As I've said before, faith has no place in Science.
What about faith in the accuracy of my carefully-calibrated, precision instrument? Or in the peer-review process that respected journals use? Or how about in the scientific method?
Oh, you mean
religious faith. Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, I think. All scientists have biases. Part of being human. Among mine are my religious views.
the moment new (and conflicting) evidence comes up, the hypothesis or theory is thrown out of the window
/me winces
Well, it's more common to tweak the theory, as necessary. Einstein's (or Bohr's, Schroedinger's, de Broglie's, and Rutherford's) work did not disprove or even discredit Newton's. It simply opened up a new area of knowledge. Classical physics is still very much in use.
even a simple statement like "There are no horses in the universe that exist outside Earth" is not considered scientific because this statement cannot be disproven.
Um, what if I found a horse on Tau Ceti IV? My favorite unprovable statement is, "Einstein was the greatest scientist who ever lived."
Besides, I really don't think it's a good idea to challenge or question what's written in your holy scripture, regardless of your religion. If you are doing that, I'm sort of wondering where your faith is.
Different religious tradition, I guess. It's kinda customary in mine . . .
