Why don't creationists understand that a scientific theory...?

Question

...is not the same as an educated guess, simple conjecture, or an opinion.

I see far to many people denying the theory of evolution because they actually believe "theory" is synonymous with "theoretical". But in the context of a "scientific theory", It's not.

A scientific theory is an accepted and logical explanation for the workings of the natural world that is founded on observation. Scientific theories are based on empirical evidence and must have the potential to be falsified.

Now a hypothesis on the other hand, could be considered somewhat theoretical as it has yet to be proven through observation and no means of falsification has been offered.

The theory of evolution is not a hypothesis.

If creationists and ID proponents want to try and shoot down the theory of evolution, good luck to them. But they 1st need to understand the difference between a hypothesis, a scientific theory, and "theory" as it is used outside of scientific context.

People! The theory of evolution doesn't deny the existence of God. It has nothing to do with God. Why do you insist on comparing apples & toasters?

Anthony asks about string theory. A good question and somewhat of an anomaly. String theory is not yet accepted in the scientific community. Because it's based on a mathematical model some contend it is a true theory. Others believe it's unfalsifiable and thus only makes for a hypothesis. This being the case, "string theory" is not properly named.

With that in mind, string theory is highly debated. Evolution is not.

Dakine- Evolution doesn't address or relate the origin of life. That's called abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis but it has legs. Scientists have shown that inorganic matter can spontaneously form organic matter (amino acids- the building blocks of life). That's another subject.

Misskati- Evolution is not taught as a law of science. Scientific theories must adhere to the many laws of science. This is how theory and law relate. This is what makes a scientific theory testable and falsifiable.

Think of it like this: a scientific theory is to "sentence" as a scientific law is to "word".

Spam- The laws of thermodynamics are not theory. They are law and they surely don't trump the theory of evolution. Of course you're referring to the 1st and 2nd law which creationists claim evolution violates. Hogwash. I'm very familiar with both. They work perfectly with the evolution. Conservation of energy is non-issue as evolution doesn't create energy. The law of entropy (the 2nd) is applied to a closed system. This is key. The Earth is not a closed system. No life form that we know of is a closed system. Evolution reguires the entropy of matter in order for neighboring matter (in this case life) to evolve.

Answer 1

"The theory of evolution doesn't deny the existence of God. It has nothing to do with God. Why do you insist on comparing apples & toasters?"

Because the churches teach them that it does and I really think that was a mistake. Really, I think they've bitten themselves in the @ss on that one.

Still, I do believe evolution does disprove the literal translation of the Christian bible.

Answer 2

That's a pretty big supposition on your part. Do you have evidence for your theory that creationists don't know what a phrase means? No, because you have no facts. Your evidence is purely anecdotal. What size sample did you use for your tests? What controls did you include in your method to come up with this theory? What statistical method did you use and where is the documentation? Just kidding. Unfortunately theory means supposition. Its the scientific method that means we leave stuff at theory because we can't know. If the universe was moving just right(not just the galaxy) then maybe the sun does orbit the earth. That's why its theory. Not likely. There is a theory there is a being beyond our comprehension, but its just a theory. More likely than the universe revolving around the earth I'd think, but still a theory. Scientific theory requires observation, so no its not the same thing. That's the real drawback. If you can't observe it according to science it doesn't exist. The problem with scientists is they think inside the box because the inside of the box is all they can see. The "mountain of evidence" is all inside the box too. Excluding the ridiculous (like God planting dinosaur bones to try to test our faith) there are creationists with an education and reasonable deduction skills. There is not a single piece of evidence that our known physical reality is the only one that exists and neither of us can prove otherwise. We can debate it without the attitude though. @Catherine Are you drunk? I responded to the OP's question "Why don't creationists understand what a "scientific theory" is?" I think saying creationists don't know the meaning of a phrase is a HUGE supposition.

Answer 3

You say "A scientific theory is an accepted and LOGICAL explanation for the workings of the natural world that is founded on OBSERVATION". Life from dead chemicals is not logical. Go out in your back yard, grad a hand full of dirt. Evolution says that this is where we came from ultimately. You call that logical. Actually, the dirt is not a very good illustration. Dirt has micro organisms in it so technically it's not dead chemicals. Probably a better example would be to take a iron barbell and imagine what it would take for it to come to life.
"Founded on observation"? No one has ever observed evolution. Just because they're are different types of dogs and cats and viruses that become drug resistent. That is genetic variation. Creationists have no problem with that. But a dog is still a dog, a cat is still a cat and virus's are still virus's. We find 'living fossils' all the time. A living fossil is a fossil of a certain creature that was date up to 500 million years old and then we find one alive today. Without exception, the living fossils are exactly the same as the fossilized fossil. Where is the evolution?
You say "Scientific theories are based on empirical evidence". I agree! Where is the evidence for evolution? Certainly, not in the fossils. . The fossils do not show evolution. They actually show complex creatures appearing suddenly during the cambrian explosion with no transitional forms before them. Darwin was aware of that problem. He said "they're out there by the millions.....you should be stumbling over them as you walk out your back door". That's a quote from Darwin. His explanation as to why they hadn't found them yet was that archeology was in it's infant stages at that time. He predicted that after he was dead they would find them by the millions. But here we are 150 years later and they still haven't found any. Stephan J. Gould who was a Harvard paleontolgist and one of the top evolutionists in the world until he died a few years ago said this:"there's a trade secret among the paleontologists of the world.....namely, that the transitional forms don't exist". My question would be...why is it a trade secret? If the evidence doesn't show evolution why don't they tell the world.
Forget about theory. Let's talk about a proven scientific law.
. If you really want a scientific law, I would suggest the Law of bio-genesis. That is a scientific law. It was proven back in around the year 1800 by Louis Pasteur. It says that life always comes from already existing life and that LIKE always produces LIKE(rabbits always produce rabbits, antelopes always produce antelopes, humans always produce humans......). That is a scientific law. It's been around for over 200 years and it's never been disproven. It's not non-falsifiable(since you mentioned falsifiability). It could be disproven. All you would have to do is find one example, either today or down through history that contradicted this law. That's never happened. Evolution, on the contrary, is a wacko theory. In reality, it's not even that. Something doesn't get to the theory level in science until there is much reason to believe it's true. Evolution is more like a hypothesis with absolutely no evidence. You have a proven scientific law going against hypothesis with no evidence and they diametrically contradict each other. The 3rd law of logic(the law of noncontradiction) says they can't both be true. I think I'll go with the law. I don't really remember any of my great, great, great, grand parents being gorillas.
Paly's argument of the 1700's still holds today. He said that if you are walking through a forest and you find a watch sitting upon a rock, you have 2 possible explanations: 1)It was designed and built by a watchmaker 2) It came about the same way the rock that it is sitting upon came about.....by random chance. Which explantion makes more sense?
Do you really believe that dumb mud could somehow bootstrap itself into intelligence over billions of years simply by random chance luck?

Answer 4

I think that it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows:
Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.

In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?

This is just my thoughts about your question. Which by the way is a good thought provoking question!!

Answer 5

A theory is still a theory. It can not be proved or it has not yet been proven.

the·o·ry (thēə-rē, thîrē)
n. pl. the·o·ries


1. 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.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The evidence of evolution can be proved but the whole of evolution can not which makes it a theory. Still I believe in the bible and I believe that evolution exists. I just believe that God made evolution if it did happen.

Answer 6

I see what you mean about the Christian need to reject evolution.

If you are interested in combining the believes of "old earth scientific theory and Christian creationism i would highly recommend the work of Dr. Hugh Ross.

He is a Christian scientist who asserts that parts of Darwinian theories can be included in a biblical creation model.

Answer 7

Why aren't theory's taught as THEORY?? Evolution is taught as fact, and has serious flaws, (agreed upon even by it's strongest proponents).

Why don't you study the laws of thermodynamics, (pay close attention to entropy and conservation of momentum), and then explain to me how evolution is anything but faith based?

(The laws of thermodynamics are actually base on scientific observation, and would qualify as scientific theory).

This is just the first of what turns out to be a whole host of problems for the "theory" of evolution

Answer 8

the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

The theory of evolution should be taught as a theory...it is not a scientific law, which means it can still be proved untrue. Why is it that evolution is taught as fact?

Answer 9

Not when the whole "scientific" theory rests on atheistic philosophical assumptions like there couldnt possibly be a God that created the universe.

Answer 10

There are two types of bible readers...Contextual readers who accept evolution as long as science concedes God created life. These are Catholics...Then you have the fundamental bible readers who reject evolution because the bible doesn't mention it. These are Protestants..