Do creationists not know the difference between a theory, and a scientific theory?
Theory (just a theory)- an idea.
Scientific Theory- a FACTUALLY COHERENT body of scientific knowledge that is understood to be a testable model capable of predicting future occurrences or observations, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.
Hence, the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection isn't a "theory" as in "i just thought of something" (i.e. Intelligent Design), it is a scientific theory.
In a scientific theory there are FACTS. The theory that there is gravity is now referred to as the "law of gravity"; no doubt, it was just a "theory" when Newton proposed it, and today, it is technically still referred to in the sophisticated sense as a scientific theory by scientists. In Evolution Theory, that we evolved is a fact; Natural Selection is the theory (in other words "why are we evolving?"). The debate is between people who believe natural selection is the sole factor, vs those who believe it to be the primary factor acting in concert with random mutations and other things, and those who consider it to be a partial factor.
Is this so difficult to understand? I mean, at least come up with arguments that take longer than a second to dismantle.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Same with Atheists my friend. Or do you not see so many Atheists calling Evolution a fact nor see Atheists saying the Big Bang theory explains how the universe started?
As long as we don't know what causes Evolution nor why it happens, it will stay a theory. This is why it is compared to gravity. We know it's there and that it happens, but don't know why or how. But evolution is based on facts and observations.
Is it sad knowing that a Christian has to clear this up for people?
edit: Funny how I quote stuff right from my Biology text, yet I'm wrong. Amazing how the truth is so wrong in the eyes of the people of this forum.
- ProfLv 51 decade ago
The 'ranks' of ideas in the scientific method:
- Conjecture; an initial notion of a potential explanation for a reliably collected and repeatable observation.
- Hypothesis; a formalisation of that initial conjecture, including tests which are capable of providing a recognisably valid result that would be accepted as demonstrating the conjecture to be false.
- Theory; a hypothesis that has been demonstrated reliable over repeated trials, by the initial author and by those partaking in the peer review and criticism procedure; and which has demonstrable and reliable associations with other related principles and formalisations in related disciplines; and which has demonstrated the capacity for predictions found to be accurate.
This is the usage that scientists apply.Source(s): An embarassing number of decades as a professional scientist and educator.
- Anonymous5 years ago
Well you tell me. The God Yahweh based His food and hygiene laws in Leviticus on His working knowledge of the germ theory of disease and the modern human body 3500 years ago. Charles Darwin based his theory of evolution on his working knowledge of the spontaneous generation theory in the early to mid 1800's. Now which scientist believed in the correct theory? It sure wasn't Charles Darwin.
- 1 decade ago
Some of them do understand the difference, but choose to deliberately misrepresent the fact in order to delude more people into believing creationism or so-called "intelligent design" are more likely to be true.
Most of them, however, do not understand the difference, and are thus easily fooled by the ID argument that "evolution is 'just' a theory!"Source(s): You may enjoy this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo&NR=1 if you haven't already seen it. Great example of a creationist "talking point" based on either ignorance or a deliberate lie (that God rather than domestication gave Cavendish bananas their modern features).
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
It is difficult to understand... If you've never had a college level 101 course in a science where the prof explains it, you write it down, you're tested on it, etc. etc.
When all you have to go by is your Parent/authority figures telling you "science is anti-religion"...what are you supposed to do? Forsake your parents and everything you know?
"see evolution is just a theory"---- makes me wanna scream
Evolution and the big-bang are not anti-ID, really.... these theories (backed up by a mountain of evidence) explain HOW things happened, religion explains WHY things happen (whether you believe them is up to you)
... so God did the big bang, God made the puddle of ooze (much like the teenage mutant ninja turtles).... just say that much so we can stop having to show you carbon dating that proves the world is more than 6000 years old and dinosaurs existed before humans... if you want to get into philosophy.... fine, but don't bring religion into science, you will lose....ps, the Earth revolves around the sun... another thing the church didn't want us to knowSource(s): Theist
- paul hLv 71 decade ago
A scientific theory is an explanation based on facts and observations within a given set of parameters but according to Professor Stephen Hawking, a theory can be disproven by a SINGLE observation or fact which disagrees with it's projections or predictions. And scientific theories are ALWAYS provisional and open to alteration or abandonement based on new observations and data.
"According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory.
On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
Such, however, is not the case with Darwinian evolution theory since there are many facts and observations which disagree with it's premise and predictions.
The fact that evidence from around the world shows that dinosaurs lived concurrently with man or the fact that there are many areas of missing transitional fossils which should have been discovered by now after 150 years of exhaustive searching. Even Darwin asserted this as well as many modern Professors, scientists, museum directors, etc such as Stephen Gould and David Raup...many of them evolutionists.
"Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species."
Or population studies which show that mankind originated around 6000 years ago according to known and accepted mathematical formulas for population growth.
The Bible states that flawed evolutionary thinking is not a new idea....some people in ancient times believed they originated from rocks and trees.
They say to wood, 'You are my father,'
and to stone, 'You gave me birth.'
- 1 decade ago
You may call it a scientific theory or just a theory and it will still not be a proven fact. This is just a word game to make evolution seem to be a proven fact which it is not.
PS: To quantumb: a theory or hypothesis: a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
This is a definition you need to become familiar with.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Good question, wasted here, until people surrender their need to have someone they call god watching over them, the world won't change. Planet of the Apes run by superstition, they'll all kill themselves and others over beliefs they can't prove, writings written by some of the first politicians of those times.
- Sam GLv 51 decade ago
and some make "exceptions" for that one
Well there was no scientific evidence then. And who spread those lies and rejected the truth back then? Its the same today: The Church.
So historically the Church has been wrong on Science (even more than just these) so there's some more circumstantial evidence of proof doesn't work for you.
- 1 decade ago
Most PEOPLE probably don't (much less creationists)... this is something that would probably be discussed in higher level science classes in high school or college.
We need a greater emphasis on Math and Science in the public (and private) education systems.