Creationists - How do you think scientists would rank the terms FACT, HYPOTHESIS, LAW, and THEORY?

Question

Rank them in order of impotance from "most important" to "least important."

I will give the actual answer later so keep checking back.

Thanks

Yea, people like Smartassawhip really impress others with his "knowledge" when he doesn't even attempt to answer the question. Thank you for all your MISinformation.

davidvario: If you had a medical problem, would you go to a auto mechanic? Who do you think will be the best judge of matters of science? I think scientists will be.

Answer 1

Since the Theory of evolution is taught and you are ridiculed in Academia if you dispute it, I would have to say: Theory, Law, Hypothesis, Fact

Answer 2

This test assumes that scientists are the be all and end all.
For the record, scientists are not God.
But, OK I'll play your game.
Law
Theory
hypothesis
Fact
These are basic components of the "scientific method" introduced by among others, Sir Francis Bacon who froze to death testing whether a dead chicken stuck in a snow bank rotted slower than one in the house (I'm not kidding).
What is not widely known is that there is no room in the scientific method for science to "prove" anything. Individuals decide what they will believe and true scientists are never supposed to coin a "Law" without repeated and extensive observation of facts.
Since the formation of the universe cannot be observed, evolution is correctly labeled as a theory and always should be, yet a large portion of the liberal scientific community (A subset of the largely godless academic community) and mostly the horribly self-serving NEA have long decided that this theory should be touted and taught to school children as fact and not theory. As such, we now have millions of brainwashed young professionals out there who think scientists know it all and worship unknowingly at the alter of dozens of middle-aged lab rat scientists with over-sized pocket protectors. (I am trying to be funny here - don't get too mad - Aren't these word pictures just too much:)
No thanks, I will continue to believe that order does not come from chaos.

Answer 3

I'm not a creationist but it's fun to see if my understanding is correct. Firstly, all are IMPORTANT to scientists; it's really a measure of certainty that you're looking for. You're also implying a hierarchy in terms of level of granularity. Also, it's important to say that these terms have completely different meanings in the context of science and everyday stuff. Given the science context:
1. FACT - a fact is a fact; it's true. We're not talking about interpretation of the fact or integration of this fact into a theory, etc. It's at the lowest level of granularity in the granularity hierarchy but it's at the highest level of certainty (but, again, within a specific context)
2. LAW - a law is at a higher level in the granularity hierarchy in that it's a broad statement based on the observation of FACTS - a law is true (a 'fact') for a given domain and context. It has the same level of certainty, though, as a fact.
3. THEORY - a theory is an extensive model that explains a specific domain. It's higher than a LAW in the granularity hierarchy (consisting of sets of LAWS). It's correct for that domain and is modified and molded as new FACTS come in (a number of FACTS may lead to a LAW which, in turn, may be incorporated into the THEORY). The word, theory, is often misunderstood by the layman to be equivalent to a 'guess'; unfortunately, science should have selected the word 'MODEL' instead to avoid the confusion. In terms of 'certainty', a scientific THEORY is meant to be a predictive model and meant to be molded based on new data (facts); therefore, we miss the point when we attempt to discredit a theory by pointing out areas that have been modified or areas where there is disagreement. Its value is in its predictive capabilities and context for the consideration of new facts.
4. HYPOTHESIS - when a scientist observes a number of FACTS and sees that the facts are potentially saying something general about something (a LAW), they present this as a hypothesis and seek to prove it via experimentation, etc. It's essentially lower in certainty than a fact and not really in the granularity hierarchy because it applies equally well to the precursor for laws and theories.

Answer 4

Creationists? Would it surprise you to know that Evolution is not even a theory, but only a hypothesis? For a hypothesis to become a "theory", experiments have to be performed and the
results conform to the hypothesis. Then these experiments have to be performed by many other scientists and the results have to all confirm the hypothesis for it to become a "theory". When has this happened with the hypothesis of Evolution? Never! Not one
experiment has ever confirmed the hypothesis of Evolution.

One does not have to invoke religion to disprove that evolution ever happened. The hypothesis of Evolution is scientifically impossible! I could cite many scientific reasons
disproving evolution but time and space won't allow that. So I will only mention one. The science of mathematicss includes
permutations and probabilities. The mathematic probability of all
that exists in all it's complexities and interdependence, came into being by accident is so close to zero, that in essence it is zero.

The only person who could believe that a living and functioning
cell with all the DNA it needs to not only control it's function, but also to completely reproduce itself, could come into existence
by lightening hitting an ocean of pure water, is one who can believe in the Tooth Fairy!

Answer 5

Theory Law Fact Hypothesis

Theory is ultimate- 99% sure

Law has some exceptions

Fact is a random data point (so I put it here as it doesnt encompass much)

Hypothesis is essentially an educated guess.

Answer 6

im not sure what you mean by most important. im not sure, but from what ive learned in school i would list them most certain to least certain like this:

fact, law, theory, hypothesis

the most certain one isnt necessarily the most important one though. i would bet that the order would change depending on which scientist you ask

oh, and fyi there are creationist scientists. they dont have to be opposites. its not the facts that contradict 'christians' and 'science,' its how that info is interpreted :)

Answer 7

Law
theory
fact
hypothesis

A hypothesis is a "possible" explanation for something.
You would then use "facts" that have already been proven to prove your hypothesis.
When the facts hold up to your hypothesis, you then have a theory.
After the theory has been proved and repeated by others, "Law".

Answer 8

Facts are most important

Laws, after that

Then Theories - evolution is only a theory

Hypothesis is just a guess

Answer 9

It would be better to ask how I would rate Scientists and what kind of scientists.

Answer 10

Law
Fact
Theory
Hypothesis