Why not just call it the creationist THEORY?

Question

Creationists keep talking about how the theory of evolution is just a theory because we werent there and we have "no proof". How can they say that their theory, that God created mankind, is the truth? They always want to shove the "truth" in other peoples faces but when scientists come out with a theory they go "no that's wrong, this is how it is".

So I propose, everybody that read this. In the future when you're talking about the creationism, add "theory" at the end. It's the logical thing to do unless you have no sympathy and respect.

Answer 1

I think creationists would be ok with that. But you'll find that most people on your side of the argument are not as reasonable as you. "Evolutionists" typically won't be satisfied to even consider creationism as a theory. They seem unable to rest until every one of us accepts their approach to the beginnings of life.

It may seem to you that the creationists are the unreasonable ones. Yes, we believe our "theory" but we don't necessarily expect you to believe it too. We simply want a world where we're allowed to speak openly about our theory without censorship.

Answer 2

guidelines are undemanding truths which have gone through riggorous attempting out many times expressed mathematically, mutually with F = Ma. A theory is outfitted round a regulation and is extra complicated than a regulation. A theory has been subjected to in intensity peer evaluate and inspite of many tries have not been disproved. What you're taking under consideration is a hypothesis. it is a testable theory that is placed out for peer evaluate. Now in simple terms because something turns right into a theory or a regulation doesn't propose it would want to't be amended in time if new observations or evidence calls one of those regulation or theory into question. case in consider case you dropped a hammer and it fell as a lot because the ceiling, and this befell on diverse activities, and could be repeated by using others, then the guidelines of action would favor to be revised, even if the flaws that make those guidelines so physically powerful is that there are not exceptions. that doesn't propose technological expertise is the revelation of absolute actuality by using any skill (actual revelation of absolute actuality has extra to do with non secular dogma than technological expertise). There are some those who regrettably cope with technological expertise like a faith and do a disservice to technological expertise by using assuming that clinical theories are absolute truths, that isn't any a lot less incorrect than believing a clinical theory is an same as a hypothesis. we've purely to seem on the evolution of contemporary atomic theory from 2 guidelines (the regulation of conservation of mass/potential and the regulation of certain proportions by skill of the plum pudding type, to the planetary type to well-known quantum type. New discoveries are continually pushing ahead the limitations of expertise, technological expertise is a procedures from static and there are many extra wonders interior the universe gazing for discovery.

Answer 3

As concepts go, theirs (the creationist's) has a an aspect or two that set it aside from the definition of "theory." At the same time, these aspects remove creationism from the realm of scientific theories.

A scientific theory is "weak" in that it can always be revised, or even thrown out the window altogether, if empirical evidence contradicts its predictions or suppositions. I use the word "weak" on purpose in opposition to dogma – which, like hardened cement, rigidly holds its form.

A further "weakness" is that science expects experimental formulations that validate, or debunk, theoretical proposals. An interesting aspect to this is that one can always dream up the conditions or findings that would invalidate a theory. For example, imagine scientists found a geological stratum that contained evidence of life forms covering almost all biological orders - from unicellular to primates. Now suppose the stratum itself could be dated, totally, to the period biologists assume only unicellular organisms could have appeared. Obviously evolution would need some serious overhauling - or chucking. That's how scientific "theories" work.

Enter the so-called "theory" of creationism. This "theory" has absolutely no "weaknesses" at all! You cannot come up with a single hypothesis it can't 'answer." Even if we found a frozen representative of every stage in the development of every species, it would still not "contradict" one single tenet of creationism. This is all based on the simple premise that it requires nothing outside of itself for proof. And it is that simple premise that points to the fatal conceptual emptiness of its proposals. (There are other show-stoppers, but from the scientific point of view, this one's plenty.)

One example of how essentially nonsensical these kind of proposals are: ask a creationist why you need "a" creator, as opposed to a team of them, or hundreds, or millions? I will leave it to your fertile imagination where to take the rest of the argument if they actually answer.

Answer 4

Creationism can not even be legitimately called a "theory" not according to the scintific definiton of theory. Because it is not backed by any proof, it can't really be tested, and is not generally accepted in the scientific community.

I don't know that it will ever rise above myth and legend status in my mind. The same with intelligent design.

Answer 5

Nope. Creationism isn't even a theory. You need a testable and deniable hypothesis before it can be a theory.
Creationism can't even come up with that. It's why the Dover court threw the whole matter out.
Face it, creationism is mythology, nothing more.

Answer 6

Naw, don't want to be lumped in the same category as evolution.

And I have never shoved anything in another persons face. And besides there is more evidence for creation, or Intelligent Design if you would prefer, than for evolution.

Answer 7

All anyone has to do is take college chemistry to understand that there IS a God out there. After all..do you know how complex the substance Adrenalin is?? Its enough to be impossible to create by accident..thats for sure!!

Carl Jung just didnt believe In a God..he KNEW there was a God.

That would be me too..I cannot doubt it.

[and im not talking about the Judeo-Christian belief in a God here]

Answer 8

Ok...

Actually the evidence (impartially viewed) is more in favor of Intelligent Design than in favor of Atheistic MacroEvolutionism.

There is no evidence that proves Atheistic MacroEvolution (without Intelligent Design)...

I used to believe in Evolution. However, over a period of time I have grown skeptical of the claims of Macro*Evolution... this is largely due to the weakness of the evidence for Macro*Evolution, and the fact that the evidence, rationally interpreted does not support the overarching claims made by Macro*Evolutionists...

For scientific and intellectual critiques of evolution, see http://www.godsci.org/gsi/apol/evo/00.html .

Cordially,
John

Answer 9

Because it ISN'T a theory. A THEORY is the word science uses to mean a group of facts which describe a process, you toadboats. It doesn't mean "Hey here's something we pulled out of our butts" like you think it does. GRAVITY is a theory too.

Answer 10

Well, actually for it to be considered a viable theory, it would have to have some backing evidence. It would actually be a hypothesis, and not a very strong one.