Should creation be refered to as an unproven theory as many theists believe should be the case with evolution?

Answer 1

I wouldn't confuse the issue by calling it a theory. Theories lie only within the world of science, not religious belief. Creationism - which is what I think you are talking about, lies completely in the world of religion, not science. Calling it a theory would imply that it somehow belongs in the world of science, which it never should. I would call it a belief, or perhaps even a myth, but not a theory.

Answer 2

"Theory" doesn't fit creationism, because the basis of creationism is simply believing something written in a book for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and then attempting to build evidence around that belief.

Theory in the scientific sense relates to careful scrutiny and analysis, dealing with facts rather than fantasy.

Answer 3

I think evolution is a theory yes. It is the result of scientific research but not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I think scientists accept it as so likely that evidence to the contrary is needed to dislodge it. A book of disputable origin is not considered evidence no matter what its contents are.

I don't think creation is a theory though.
Creationism is a religious concept, not a theory.

Answer 4

Sure. Why not? Hey, I'm a Christian, and I believe in Creationism, but I can't prove it. Lots of people believe in Darwinian evolution, but that can't be scientifically proven either. So if we call one a "theory" because it can't be proven, then it's only fair to call the other a "theory" as well.

Answer 5

If you insist up on using proven then you can also include evolution in there too.
Since no one was there to observe either event neither can be scientifically proven.
But both can be taught as alternative views, but this terrifies democrats and liberals, they only want their view taught as anything view would expose the painfully and blatantly obviously problems with their world view and evolution is a cornerstone to their world view.