> Evolution is a paradigm that can be superimposed on the data.
I'm not sure why you said "paradigm" here, since "theory" would have
sufficed. Have you been reading Kuhn? Be careful, because in his book
he used the word "paradigm" in not fewer than 22 different ways.
Anyway, like *all* scientific theories, evolution is a description that
"can be superimposed on the data." One of the features of a scientific
theory is that it explains the data, so your statement seems a bit
vacuous, because it's obviously true.
> It is not the only, nor even the best explanation in my opinion.
Again, be careful how you bandy about words like "explanation." The
explanations used by scientists have to meet a very high standard
(explain, predict, be falsifiable, etc). This standard is so high that
explanations of this kind have their own name: "theory."
The theory of evolution has no serious competition from any other
scientific theory that explains the same natural phenomena. The theory
has been so successful that it now provides the overarching theoretical
framework for all of biology.
Of course, there are probably many "explanations" of same phenomena
explained by evolutionary theory, but few if any rise to the status of
"theory." For example, many religions have their own explanation for
the origin of life on Earth.
That's fine, but these explanations aren't scientific, and as such don't
compete with any scientific theory. You are comparing apples and
oranges.
If you have another "theory" that you think is better than evolution,
that's wonderful! Perhaps you're able to answer some outstanding
questions. You should publish your theory in a scientific journal, and
elucidate why the data is better explained using your model. (After
all, that's what Einstein did when he was able to explain the peculiar
orbit of Mercury.)
However, if you have only a mere "explanation" of observed phenomena,
then perhaps you don't really have a "theory." In that case, you can't
say that your explanation is "better than" evolution, because they
aren't comparable.
--Religious dogma has the opposite structure [from science]. Dogma,including creationism, is a statement from authority which no one hasthe right to question. It's true because authority says it is true.Eric Sharp, Detroit Free Press, 16 Sep 1999