Why do most Christians have a problem understanding the term "theory"?

Question

I CONSTANTLY see "it's just a theory. It's JUST a theory." I assume that by "theory", you mean "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a guess; conjecture; speculation".

Guess what, folks?

That's NOT what it means in the context of science.

"A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts & as a basis for future discussion or investigation."

"A logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena, originating from &/or supported by experimental evidence. A systematic & formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical & testable."

"A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses & verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers."

Why do people have SUCH a problem with this? HONESTLY???

I suppose I could've said "why do most theists" or "why do most believers" or even "why do most creationists". It seems, though, that in general on this forum it's the Christians specifically who have a problem conceiving of multiple meanings of a word based on context.

*sigh* Looks like several people STILL have a problem grasping the concept. Ah well... I'd still like to know why, though.

Theta, I freely admit that there are several definitions of "theory". I don't want anyone to assume that there is only ONE meaning. Why would you think that's what I'm saying? I'm saying obviously there ARE several meanings and that I don't understand why people (like yourself, I can see) can't grasp the concept of CONTEXT. "Theory" means one thing in science class and another in everyday vernacular. Yes. This is true. This is PART OF THE PROBLEM. People think that the one definition they know (and generally that definition is the "conjecture" definition) applies to all uses. Apparently you think that I'm saying the scientific definition is the "only one".

No.

I'm not.

I'm saying I don't understand why people are so blind to MULTIPLE meanings, to CONTEXUAL meanings, to PROPER usage. The definition of a scientific theory isn't "my" definition... it's what the word MEANS in the context of science. I can't change that any more than you can.

Answer 1

Willful ignorance. I couldn't count the times I've seen it explained for them here. but it does no good at all.

Ditto for evolution saying man came from monkeys.

If a creationist web site says it, it must be true. *sigh*

Answer 2

The failing is the public school system.

When science proved evolution and other major principles, those who won made the mistake of assuming people would accept facts on their own. They don't.

Schools ceased to teach children how to think, ceased to teach logic, something that was common even when the ignorance of cretinism - oops, creationism - was in vogue.

The cretins - oops, creationists - have fed off this and used this mistake to inflict religious ignorance on people not knowledgeable enough to defend themselves. It's also why they are so insipid - oops, insistent - on "teaching both sides" (IF they can't get away with removing science from the classroom, otherwise they will).

What is needed is a grassroots campaign to teach critical thinking and logic at the grade 4 or 5 level, _before_ children are introduced to science. It's far easier to recognize poppycock if you know _how_ to spot it. When children are educated enough to recognize the inconsistency and contradictions of cronyism - oops, creationism - they won't accept it. It would take two generations to remove the occult from schools (this one to recognize it and the second to prevent anything else being taught to their kids).

The simple fact is, people thought enlightenment would stand up by itself because it was so obviously true, that only the ignorant would reject it. What was forgotten is that ignorance is easy while thinking requires effort, and people _always_ do the least work required to get something done.


.

Answer 3

I think you're approaching it from the wrong angle. The definition of theory isn't the issue. That species evolve over time is an indisputable fact that can't be challenged. The mechanisms involved in evolution are however theoretical and can be challenged although there is no competing theory to natural selection. Instead of explaining to them the meaning of theory we should be emphasising the fact that evolution is both a fact AND a theory, and ONLY the theoretical part i.e. the biological mechanisms involved can be subject to conjecture.

Answer 4

There is more than one definition for this word in the dictionary:
Definition #3 in my dictionary states: " 3. Broadly, hypothosis or supposition."
Your question seems to be more like
" Why don't Christians choose the definiton of the word theory that I want them to ? "

I don't see that their choice of definition, given the general context of this forum is their problem.
(You won't have this problem if you play with the science forums)
But I do understand why you have a problem with their choice.
If you need to assert that you are right and others are wrong you have to expect that those others will do the same.
It's not really about the "right" definition of the word theory in this case.
It's about the game of having to be right. You are using science to invalidate a concept that isn't pretending to be scientific or material in order to be right.
But at the risk of spoiling this game , it's not really about "right" or "wrong".
The amount of truth in any theory ultimately lies in the observation and experience of the individual. And even then it is only true for them according to their own observation and experience with it.
That's personal integrity and nobody has the right to invalidate that for anyone else.
There's more to life that what you can find or "prove" in a laboratory......HONESTLY!

Answer 5

I have a problem with your explanation. Christians are not dumb enough to just systematically assume that a reality or projected reality is proven in the life, physical, and social fields of science. Christians understand the word "theory" and what it means, and understand that science (whether it be life, physical, or social) is a long, tenuous process that entails many experiments (trials and errors) that lead to a so-called scientific or social conclusion.

It would behoove you, Mr. Liberal-smarty-pants-mucho-arrogante-latte-drinking-narrow-minded-anti-Christian-non-explorative-narcissist you to keep you a** in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Boston, Detroit, New Orleans, or whatever freaking left-wing whining enclave you're from.

This is brought to you directly from an everyday Joe in a RED STATE!!!!!!

Answer 6

I think emotional insecurity and intellectual single mindedness are traits that lead a person to needing absolutes in their life. Science, by its very nature, is unsteady when it comes to absolutes. Science rewards skepticism, while religion frowns upon it. Christianity, on the other hand, rewards faith while science does not include it in its approach to problems. Perhaps that is why some people are dis-satisfied with the term "theory". To them it means weakness and something into which they should not place any "faith".

Answer 7

This is a real pet peeve of yours, isn't it?

"That's NOT what it means in the context of science." - Life isn't a science class. But, out of respect of so many wonderful questions you have asked in the past, I vow to make every effort to use the word in its proper scientific use from now on.

Answer 8

before i took a class in evolution i believed a theory is a guess or the same as an hypothesis because its commonly used like that. my teacher stressed the meaning of the word so much to get the point across. and he did :P

Answer 9

it truly is severe lack of self belief. they favor so badly to "be excellent" that they are moved to reason conflicts, which they then set out "to win" in any respect expenses. even as they could't win a conflict with effective conversations, they hotel to attempting to belittle or insult others in an attempt to diminish their opponent and make themselves sense like the victor. in all equity I truly have considered the exact same habit in the Pagan community to boot....it truly is not any longer only a christian project, that's a human project.

Answer 10

hey zero cool you ask a good question now here goes anyway i'm agnostic anyway i was a catholic and a protestant at one point anyway to christians a theory is basically how you described it in your opening statement and they view theories as mere speculation and guesswork and they view it as somewhat contradictory and blasphemous towards their view of god and creationism and is viewed as the work of the devil although what you're saying is basically true about the term of theory anyway not all christians have a problem with scientific theories it's mostly the fundamentalists who find it troubling i hope i have helped you in anyway i possibly could