If the theory of Evolution is challenged by Creationists....?

Question

...are people actually admitting their faith is also just a theory by evaluating it as a prior probability ?


Please note the category....

Answer 1

Creationists are remarkably impervious to reason, while scientists and "evolutionists" are open to new paradigms as new facts are discovered, in fact science welcomes new ideas to be tested, repeatedly observed and recorded.

Creationists will never admit that their faith was a mere 'prior probability.' To them, what was will always be, nothing more nothing less. If there are new evidence or discoveries proving evolution, they'll claim a conspiracy is afoot. You will never be able to argue with Creationists, like i said before, they're impervious to reason.

Just in response to the guy above me: What's wrong with this argument is that each part of a complex molecular machine evolves as part of the system. Natural selection can act on a complex system because at every stage of its evolution the system functions. Parts that improve function are added, and, because of alter changes, become essential. Darwin's theory of evolution has proven controversial among the general public, although the commonly raised objections are without scientific merit.

Answer 2

Just for the information, Both Creationism and Evolution are just theories that have not been proven by either side and probably never will be either.

At least at this time, the scientific community is leaning towards intelligent design but to an extent is a bit afraid to come out too hard to vocally because the Creationists would use their message to an undeserved direction.

Part of the reason for their swing is that three-fold. One DNA evidence has not found a single species that has been developed by evolution. Second, the odds of a cell coming into existence is so astronomical, that is beyond the realm of possibilities (it makes winning the lottery almost a sure thing in conparison). Third, science to date has not been able to duplicate the necessary conditions to produce a single cell organism in the labatory yet.

When all is said and done, each side has faith that their theory is correct and act accordingly. It is doubtful that the minds of either will be changed any time in the near future.

Answer 3

faith, and therefore creationism, can not be falsified. Therefore, calling it a scientific theory is incorrect.

Some people would debunk evolution on the basis that it is just a theory. This accusation demonstrates a basic ignorance of the methods and principles of science. The scientific method holds as a matter of course that all conclusions are tentative, and that nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty. Every conclusion reached by any scientist must always include, even if it is only assumed, the unspoken preface that "This is true only to the best of our current knowledge".

Compare that with a creationist who "knows 100% without a doubt" that God exists

Furthermore, it is simple word bandying, as common usage of the term theory and the scientific usage of the word theory are two different things. In popular view, a theory is something that is unproven. However, in science, a theory is a hypothesis that has been backed by observable evidence.

The difference between science and faith has always been that scientists see the facts and draw conclusions from them (Darwin had to observe the Galapogas Islands before he postulated his theory) while religionists already have their conclusion (belief in God) and look for facts to support it.

Answer 4

LOL! Good one.

But seriously, I suppose it hasn't been considered that way, because 'theory' enjoys the more iconic status in this world than 'theology'. So one would reckon the original thought of the Creationist movement was to raise the iconic status of theology, as opposed to lowering it.. Which is all kind of ironic really cause I essentially think your point is quite valid.

There are a lot of things to wonder about it, like, for example, given the defined nature of theory (ie testable but admittably fallible) it's iconic status is rather uncanny, what put it there if not infallibility.... and the essence of that question of where lies the point where one intrinsically speculative explanation and another are actually opposed to each other... isn't that point of difference just another theory?

And just a few seconds on my soapbox, if you don't mind, I actually was impressed by major correlations between the big bang theory of the formation of the atom, and the story of genesis anyway, so I sometimes wonder what they hell they are fighting about.

Answer 5

The thing is that Evolution is a proves scientific theory while Creationism is basically knowledge reveiled by God with a scientific sounding name.
Of course many creationists use scientific argument but a proper use of scientific argumentation requires that faith and reveiled knowledge can not be accepted as true.
The same happens with scientists get involved with theologival arguments. Scientific knowledge is not the only acceptable criterion of truth for believers.
You could say that what you say is true but the problem is that Creationist arguments about Evolution start with wrong assumptions about what is scientifically true so you can not draw valid conclusions from them. Its just empty rhetoric designed to create impresions and so it doesn't mind being self-contradictory.

Answer 6

Faith isn't a theory. It's a feeling. An instinct. Innate knowledge. When you have it, there isn't any doubt. It would be like saying that I theorize that I live & breathe...no, I just do.

But just for the sake of curiosity, how does the platypus factor into Evolutionary theory? What is the reason for a mammal to lay eggs? How is it survival of the fittest? Or is it an anomaly? Is it a work of art like the myriad other creatures whose beauty & uniqueness serve no evolutionary purpose but are merely curiosities because they were created out of love, humour and a sense of whimsy by a benevolent Creator/Artist/Designer...?

:)
Peace out.

Answer 7

Its not really much of a challenge. Creationists will convince no one who did not already have a tendency to believe in God.

They will never admit that their faith is just a theory. In beliefs like creationism, Faith is an unquestionable given.

Answer 8

In the broadest of terms, both evolution and creationism are theories because there's no way either one can be proven with 100% accuracy. So from there you have to go back to the available evidence and determine for yourself which one has more proof to back it up. Those of us who believe in creationism realize there's no way we can convince anyone that there is a God because we can't point to Him and say "That's God." Besides, The Bible shows that even those who saw the miracles of God and His Son Jesus Christ didn't all become believers. When someone asks me why I believe in creationism over evolution, I point to two things: (1) Christian Evidences -- Google that term and see the mountain of actual documented evidence supporting the accounts of The Bible. There's more documented proof of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is of the voyages of Christopher Columbus, but which one is taught as FACT in our schools? (2) The fact that Charles Darwin, the father of the theory of evolution, recanted his theory and espoused a belief in God and creationism about ten years after he wrote "On the Species of Man." You don't hear supporters of evolution passing on that little tidbit of information, do you?

Answer 9

Faith is a belief System, not a theory. Everyone knows Creationism is bunk except the radicals I can't go on because of the category we are in.

Answer 10

At the heart of this so-called debate is neither biology or scripture, geology or theology, but who has the authority to determine the foundational narrative for civilization. In this regard the predicament is more about hubris than anything else-- and both evolutionists and creationists walk right into this trap.