What's with Creationists and rejecting Theories?

Question

People do so love to argue science v religion and so often the religion side will say something like "Oh, Evolution is only a theory" and consider the argument to be over. Where does this rediculous attitude come from?

A definition of Theory can be found here: http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=theory&gwp=13. I think that the vast majority of scientific theories fall under the first definition, i.e. "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." Most people who reject our theories of evolution or the round earth or the heliocentric solar system seem to think that all theories fall under the 6th definition in that they are "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." With this same logic wouldn't then their faith in God turn be one of their dismissable 'Theories'?

Answer 1

They don't know what a theory is. Often, textbooks don't even clearly define what a theory is because they want their books to sell by not causing controversy.

I guess because gravity is also "only a theory" we should hold big debates about it as well and put warning stickers in textbooks warning about how critical analysis of gravity must be taken into consideration when studying.

Answer 2

I'm a little torn between Creationism and Evolution, but even I can't help but shake my head when someone (especially an educated person who should know better) tries to refute evolution by saying that it is "just a theory."

YES, it IS a theory. But saying that it is does NOT refute it.

Unfortunately, a lot of people will refuse to let this sink into their heads. Just see my question on this subject: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aoeke2kTHPleWzKoqsHpgR7sy6IX?qid=20061121162541AAonCBI

Can I add that I once had a college professor try to discredit evolution by saying that it is "just a theory?" Imagine that. A person educated at the doctoral level making such a statement.

Now, that is not to say that people can't argue against evolution or approach it with a critical mindset (for the record, scientists do that all the time). But using the "it's just a theory" argument shows a lack of knowledge of scientific terminology.

Answer 3

I've wondered the same thing myself many times. I am very interested in sciences and don't really see how someone can "not believe" in some theories with so much research behind them while they believe so much in a book written thousands of years ago! What I think it all boils down to is fear and pride.

It seems that any logical person would be able to believe in both. (a good example being a book named "The Creator and the Cosmos" by Hugh Ross, PH.D.) I think the problem arises when they become to prideful to want to admit they might be wrong as well as so fearful that: should anything suggest that there may not be a need for their faith, they completely reject it. This same sort of fear and pride concept along with ignorance is pretty much the cause for many conflicts between science and religions and has halted many scientific research.

Almost the same concept with religious based wars don't you think?

Answer 4

Let's assume for a moment that creationists are being honest with themselves and others and believe that they actually have some sort of evidence or irrefutable argument that will be the undoing of the theory of evolution.
What would be the best way to communicate this astounding information to the scientists working on it and to the public at large?
Why has the scientific community not acknowledged it? Why haven't the general public, the media, and even mainstream christians accepted it?
Are we to believe that there is a great conspiracy where so many are out to stifle the poor little creationists?




Response



As you may or may not know, there is not unanimity among Creationists on all the specifics (OEC and YEC), nor on what approach would be the most productive. Some Creationist groups/organizations choose to focus on swaying public opinion. Others prefer to do science to the best of their ability and let that speak for them.
Many here have heard me refer people to GRI as an example of the latter approach. T.O. Archives refers to them in a pretty good light, all things considered. The stuff there on the Paluxy prints probably has the most frequent references to GRI. If you go looking there to verify what I've said, be aware that GRI is headquartered at Loma Linda University, and when the articles refer to the "Loma Linda team", that is GRI.
I emailed GRI about one year ago and asked why they weren't as vocal in the whole C/E debate as some of the other more well known Creationist groups (like ICR for example). The response I got was that they prefer to focus on science rather than rhetoric and were content to let that speak for them. The research scientist that responded to me indicated that they are well aware of their good reputation and desire to keep it.
I know that several, if not all, of the GRI scientists are actively pursuing their chosen fields of science and are published in mainstream journals, as well as GRI's journal Origins.
The other day I was digging around the LLU website. On the Dept. of Natural Sciences pages, I noticed the professors are extensively published in their respective fields. Now, let me say here that some of these professors may be OEC, but not evolutionists! Anyway, in addition to many various published pieces, I also noticed one professor in particular that had received numerous research grants.
I mention the above to make the point in the different philosophical approaches to what is actually going to be constructive. None of the professors are known to be active in Creationist circles or groups that I know of. They are focusing on the science end and leaving the rhetoric to others.
Frankly, it is this type of approach that I think Kurt Wise approves of. He has been pretty vocal in the past about Creationists going off half-****** and ending up doing bad science. So it may be of some comfort to you to know that there are many more scientists of the Creationist persuasion that are actively doing the hard work in the trenches, though with little fanfare.
I hope that this has helped shed some light on the issue for you.

Answer 5

I think that what you see alot of here is a person throwing up a defense, trying to use your tenets and system of belief. They are sincere, but they do not know how to express themselves to you. I look at science as a valid point. But, its conclusions are not always in synch with what I have learned. I use this example alot, but do you try to explain the world and all its complicated glory, to an ant? No, that ant can not comprehend or even understand, if it could comprehend. It is way out of their league. So, it is the same with us and God's ways. We are like the ant telling the picnicker that ants know better, and don't need the potato salad.....

Answer 6

The story of creation as found in Genesis was never meant to provide theological evidence to support creation sceince. As a Christian who has taken the time to study in-depth the historical context of the Genesis creation story, I understand that its writing was not a literal explanation of God's creation. It was more about contrasting the multiple pagan gods of Babylon against the Hebrew belief in the one God of Israel, Yahweh. Near-Eastern culture taught metophorically because it was primarily an illiterate society. Genesis was a story that offered the Jews hope of deliverance from Babylonian slavery and oppression. To align Genesis with the literal order of creation and apply a specific science methodology from it is to entirely miss the point of Genesis.

Answer 7

Anti-Evolution Christians are so ignorant when it comes to science that they think "theory" means what it does colloqually: some sort of guess. What they mean by "theory", science calls a hypothesis. And evolution is not a hypothesis, it's a well-established theory. Like the theory of Gravity. Let's see them deny that!

Answer 8

how can thay reject theories all thay have is a fairy tale about adam and eve and earth made is 6days evolution is real fact the world is on evolutions side all creation douse in make the usa look like fools

Answer 9

I reject the premise that Faith is a form of a theory, only because I reject the premise that Atheism is a religion... Religion is not based upon testable hypothesis'.

Otherwise, I feel that your "theory" (Of the 6th definition) is based upon fact.

Answer 10

The evolution theory is, thru science, showing how G-d created the earth and life, and is continually creating it.

It is like saying, I won't go to a certain doctor because he only practices medicine-he doesn't do medicine. It is a matter of semantics.