I am a confuzzled creationist. Are scientific theories simply describing facts?

For example, the theory of evolution. Would the theory simply describe the facts that support biological evolution? And therefore make evolution into both a scientific theory and an observed fact?


Btw, what did you think of my alliteration? A bit amateurish?

15 Answers

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Best Answer

    Evolutionary scientists mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested; it must be “naturalistic.” Creation is by definition “supernatural.” God and the supernatural cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes); therefore, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

    However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered “scientific.” This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.”

    If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

    Read This


    And Consider this

    Creation in the 21st Century “Caught in the Act”


    Youtube thumbnail

    (Part 1)


    Youtube thumbnail

    (Part 2)


    Youtube thumbnail

    (Part 3)

    Creation In The 21st Century -- From Where did these Layers ...


    Youtube thumbnail

    Creation in the 21st Century - Overwhelming Evidence 1 of 3


    Youtube thumbnail

    Creation in the 21st Century - Overwhelming Evidence 2 of 3


    Youtube thumbnail

  • 9 years ago

    A scientific theory is a logical construct that links several natural laws together. Unlike the vulgar definition of 'theory', it does NOT mean an unproved conjecture.

    A scientific theory explains how different laws work together; in the case of evolution, that would be random mutation, natural selection and speciation.

    Facts are observed. Effects are predicted according to natural laws. And explanation is provided by the scientific theory.

  • 4 years ago

    It is true that we cannot see electrons. However, Electron theory has verified itself time and again. I used to be an electronics technician. I, myself have verified electron theory, made predictions based on the theory, and have seen those predictions prove valid. The same can be said about things like gravity, germs, etc. I accept them as facts because they constantly verify themselves. Evolution, on the other hand, cannot be verified. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to prove why evolution is wrong. Evolutionists hold an unequal standard when discussing this issue. They refuse to acknowledge any evidence that supports creation, but treat any evidence (regardless how weak) for evolution as solid proof.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Not at all. If evolution is an observable fact. Where is the evidence having been observed producing that fact ? Btw, I'm talking about a observation that can not be chalked up to adaption of a species to environmental pressures or changes .

    Has someone observed one kind of animal evolving to another ? Or a fish or a bird producing a non fish or bird ?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Science explains the big bang was not from nothing but from a singularity that was all the matter and energy in the universe compressed into a single point that then expanded rapidly!

    So in answer to your question it was always here!

    But why are BAD christians always claiming the big bang came from nothing? Are they that ignorant? Did they sleep through school or is it that they know the truth but think they can twist it because everyone is gullible?!

    Now you try explaining where god got nothing from how he is supposed to have then produced everything from nothing!

  • 9 years ago

    The purpose of the theory is to tie everything together. The theory is composed of thousand upon thousand of scientific facts and evidences.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Basically, yes.

    The way creationists twist the word "theory" in regard to evolution is akin to saying that a tree has no bark (since bark also refers to the sound a dog makes). It's a simple equivocation.

  • 9 years ago

    we has human trying to understand and explain everything to OUR understanding, thats about it, nothing humans know are facts, just partial understanding for our intelligence right now. example. for hundreds of years we thought the world was flat and we also thought Pluto was a planet and those were facts.

  • Loki
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    Ask an amused agnostic, and an alliterative answer automatically appears, although as alliteration and all are also as amusing as any actual answer, ask again.

  • 9 years ago

    yea I liked the word confuzzled. But I was haphazardly, horribly, hoping you would meticulously migrate more alluring, alliterated wording into your tiny bit-o text

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.