On how the word 'theory' is used
10 Nov '10 14:17Originally posted by FabianFnasI admire those that patiently seek to inform the avoiding fundamentalist creationists. Using correct terminology is central and your post is appreciated. If we are not using the same agreed definitions from the start, the rest is chaos and confusion, as you have encountered.
Some christians believe that a scientific theory is less credible because it has the word 'theory' connected with it. The often say that "Well it's only a theory, nothing more." or "It's nothing more than a mere guessing."
They usually say this when we're discussing the 'the Evolution theory', but sometimes also 'the BigBang theory'. Strange enough, ne ...[text shortened]... e seriously, then it shows your own opinions as weak.
As I understand it, a theory is sometimes one of a number of coherent attempts to explain the facts, but usually with time one becomes predominant because it fits the facts together in the most logical, clear and simplest way. Later facts to come to light clarify and confirm the theory as a whole, but the FACTS are always at base. Dear Darwin would be most delighted, God bless him. 🙂
I don't usually read many posts about the creation-evolution discussion because of the frustrating abuse of definition and claims of "scientific fact" that are unsubstantiated, except for referrals to so-called discredited "science" of creationists sites. But I read the entirety of this post, just to see how things have changed. Not much.
Using spurious "scientific" labelling is easy. I don't call it active lying but avoidance of facing the destruction of a primitive idea. Yes painful, but you will survive, fundo friends..
There are MUCH PROVEN FACTS to support evolutionary theory. (I am not going to fruitlessly digress into the usual -"prove it!" response, they are well known and available.) But they won't go far into "the "devil's" territory, will they, our dear fundos.
A pre-scientific poetic statement in Genesis is not science as we define it today. There are numerous facts that show that the world of this planet did not suddenly emerge, as is, over a brief period. In the light of modern knowledge this is patently ridiculous. The underlying cosmology of genesis times included flat earths on pillars and stars fixed on a dome. This is all selectively avoided by the creationists.
The reason fundamentalists react in such a blind and avoiding way is because they interpret accepting evolutionary processes as displacing their rigid concept of God and see it denying their assertion that the Christian (and Jewish) revered scripture is the inviolable direct "Word of God" and the only one, and interpret it exceedingly literally. This is also the base of much of their intolerance of others. It also totally ignores the finding of biblical literary historical research of how these writings actually came together.
Fruitful discussion often becomes useless with die-hard fundamentalists, but I think it is important for the floor not to be taken over by these blind ones, as it has been leaking too much into schools etc. In this ever fascinating field of Samsara, we do need to patiently react strongly to avoid returning to the dark ages. I was most pleased to see the victories in US courts against these spurious "science" claims.
Back to Top