Why do christians misinterpret the term "theory" when used in scientific terminology..?

Question

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'"

The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

Christians, do you now understand why the term t"heory" when used in scientific terminology is different to th everyday use of the word..?

The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

Christians, do you now understand why the term "theory" when used in scientific terminology is different to th everyday use of the word..?

If not, WHY..??

"Simpleesimple", are you aware that the dribble you have posted bears no resemblance to the real world..??

Fabricating false truths to add weight to your claims only makes you look desperate, and of course a dangerous fool with an agenda..

Keep that ill informed, pseudo science trash to yourself bud..!!

Answer 1

Why is it that atheists feel they have to shove their beliefs down our throats constantly? I thought that's one of the things you supposedly hate about Christians????

Ask yahoo for an Atheist Q&A board so you can all pat each other on the back for being so darn smart.

Answer 2

I would venture to say my elementary school days predate yours by a decade or so...maybe more. In elementary school we were not indoctrinated in that fashion. In high school we were taught that a hypothesis can be worked into a working theory by examining evidence related to that hypothesis. Repeated observation of a phenomenon lends support to a theory while any law that denies its validity must necessarily disprove the theory. Any theory that is supported by all evidence is law.
Fossil records do no more than verify that something made those fossils. Many of them with similar appearance are further evidence that an organism of that particular type once existed. A variety of fossils points out that many types of now extinct organisms once existed. If all of the fossils that have ever been found were to suddenly come to life there would still be no evidence to point to their being related to each other or to anything else living today.
You erre when you refer to law as being a descriptive generalization, and the fact that a theory CAN incorporate facts does not make the theory true. The theory can still prove to be false in the final analysis.
How do you rationalize the laws of thermo-dynamics as applied to the theory of evolution? After formulating your explanation there is another question to answer. What drove that simple organism to evolve in complexity to its current state?
Edit:
To which false truth do you refer and what pseudo-science?
I suspect your search engine led you to a site or two posted by a whacko religious group and you assumed me to be one of them. Your quick response and tone of voice bely your supposed great learning and immense reservoir of restraint.
As for the allegations of other posters that Christians are brain-washed by pastors and church schools let me relate that my youth was spent in the presence of neither.
Educate me. Point to the specifics of my misunderstanding instead of launching into a well rehearsed tirade.

Answer 3

You have to remember a couple of things. First, while you are correct, schools today are not dooing a good job of teaching science for the msot part. In addition, many of these people--sme of whom are well-intentioned but misguided and misinformed--are also virtually brainwashed by "pastors" in churches that have become litlemore than cults, sociologically speaking.

Also--bear in mind many of these people have attended "church schools" or been home schooled--and they are not taught science, er se, but a distorted version that not only includes "creationism" but a distorted geology that clims the Earth is 6000 years old (which isn't even IN the Bible) and other falshoods.

And one of the things they've been taught--deliberately--is that a "theory" is no more tan an opinion or an unproven idea.

Answer 4

Surprisingly, we have understood that for a loooooooooong time! Quite a lot of us can read, you know.....

The problem is not how "scientists use" the term. The differences you mention are moot. It is the way the term is forced on the laity that is protested, and not just the term itself.

We don't (most of us, anyway) discount the genetic flexibility of created things, ie descent with modification, as a fact. The REAL problem is, to accept the "whole package" of evolution, we are told we have to "abandon" our faith in a creator. Dump God or Else Remain Ignorant. Instead of sacrificing to the human Emperor, or else face the lions as an "athiest", we are now told to sacrifice to the athiests, or be thrown to the wolves!

Answer 5

Sounds to me like someone is a little bitter, and hasn't done their homework very well. Is your question pointed towards uneducated Christian evangelists that always try to use Scripture to back up their beliefs, or are you attacking to the growing number of scientists that are beginning to doubt the imperical religion known as Darwinism or Evolution? Besides, I think "emptywun" makes a good point, but that's just me...

Answer 6

Two bases. Ignorance is the majority. The other reason is to attack by obfuscation, since the facts are too sound. Since molecular data became available, the evidence of common descent is overwhelming.

Answer 7

Evolution is a religion, It has never been proven to be a scientific fact. Many scientists believe in creation(intelligent design), and concider it a fact that where there is a design, there is a designer. It is reasonable to assume that where there is energy, there is a source for that energy, even if it is invisible and we are unable to fully understand it.
No one can prove that a creator, or creative force doesn't exist.

Answer 8

NO ONE in elementary school has the INTELLGENCE to absorbe that

And GOD as a CREATOR is a legitimate THEORY

You have to DISPROVE IT to NOT make it a theory

DISPROVE GOD

I DEFY YOU

DISPROVE GOD

You can't PROVE RANDOMISM

You can't PROVE GOD

Therefore BOTH are legitimate

I can EASILY disprove randomism

IPODS don't grow on trees
Microwave ovens don't grow on trees
Air Conditioners don't grow on trees
Cars don't grow on trees
Houses don't grow on trees

CREATIONISM is a WAY OF LIFE

You HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT
or go LIVE IN A CAVE
That is the SHELTER NATURE provided you through EVOLUTION

CREATIONISM is a FACT OF LIFE

NOTHING in NATURE competes with CREATIONISM

An APPLE CAN BE SOUR
An APPLE CAN BE DRY
AN APPLE CAN HAVE A WORM INSIDE OF IT
MOTTE'S APPLESAUCE IS ALWAYS PEFECT

IT WAS CREATED

IT DOES NOT GROW ON TREES

IT IS A CREATED FORMULA

MY proof is a US PATENT on Motte's Apple Sauce!

It IS unique

It IS CREATED

It TASTES THE SAME from JAR TO JAR
An APPLE DOES NOT

RADOMISM SUCKS
CREATIONISM IS PERFECT

Answer 9

The don't understand science.

Answer 10

some people are just brainwashed and uneducated....it`s not actually their fault, and it`s in part our fault, as a society, too because we permit them to be brainwashed..