Why 'just a theory'?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, indeed.

But there are some things that aren't explainable within scientific borders.

Like the parting of the Red Sea.

It's just so unscientific, it's ... it's ... well ... it must be a miracle.

But unfortunately, miracles are lumped in as "figments of the imagination" and left at that.

That's where the friction comes in between empiricists and miracle believers.

If you could find a way to actually study miracles, you'd be lauded by all scientists for sure. And possibly made the enemy of many other religious groups. Not a win-win for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

But when it's the reverse, with people talking about science, in this case evolution, and your or others just jump in and go "It's just a theory", it's less a put down and more... trolling.

Bye-bye --

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Foolproof way to get rid of AV, I see. Sadly.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your persecution complex is showing again.

I had to uncover the post, but it looks like someone is trying hard to argue that they fall in category 5.

 

[BCP1928]

I'd say it's because evolution gets its claws deeper into the Bible than any other theory.

The theory of evolution doesn't show any concern with what you think the Bible says. Biologists generally don't care about what you think the Bible says. What you think the Bible says has no effect on science. It does have an effect on other things some of us are concerned about--science education particularly and other public policy issues. That's what you are trying to get claws into.

So we "fight back" by showing evolution for what it is: just a theory.

I could respond by saying, "It's just an old book" but the truth is, it's not even yours to begin with.

 

[Ophiolite]

But when it's the reverse, with people talking about science, in this case evolution, and your or others just jump in and go "It's just a theory", it's less a put down and more... trolling.

It is, arguably, a put down of their own intellectual grasp of the concept of scientific theories and as such is a useful identifier, foretelling the type of pseudo-argument and flawed logic that will follow.

 

[BCP1928]

It is, arguably, a put down of their own intellectual grasp of the concept of scientific theories and as such is a useful identifier, foretelling the type of pseudo-argument and flawed logic that will follow.

Even if they know properly what a scientific theory is, there is still the incredulity to express, "How can you reject the absolute certainty of the Bible for the provisional knowledge provided by science?" It's easy to move on from there to imagining wicked reasons for it.

 

[Shemjaza]

Even if they know properly what a scientific theory is, there is still the incredulity to express, "How can you reject the absolute certainty of the Bible for the provisional knowledge provided by science?" It's easy to move on from there to imagining wicked reasons for it.

I feel the like new presence of the Flat Earthers to be mildly helpful in this discussion.

I think it breaks the normal YEC claim on "plain reading" vs scientific conclusions.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is the claim I see brought up a lot from people who do not accept evolution and Creationists (I am separating them because though there is an overlap there is a difference): that evolutionary theory is worthless or wrong or of less value because it is 'just a theory'?

So why is evolution considered 'just a theory' but other scientific theories are not called 'just theories'?

Something I've been curious on.

Well it's an inherently speculative theory- when you're trying to reconstruct historical events over vast periods.
But if we're talking about Darwinian theory in particular- I think the term is being fairly generous. It doesn't really attempt to address the relevant questions of evolution at all, rather focusses on natural selection, which in a sense is the opposite of evolution- it explains how the tree of life is thinned out, not how it grows.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well it's an inherently speculative theory- when you're trying to reconstruct historical events over vast periods.
But if we're talking about Darwinian theory in particular- I think the term is being fairly generous. It doesn't really attempt to address the relevant questions of evolution at all, rather focusses on natural selection, which in a sense is the opposite of evolution- it explains how the tree of life is thinned out, not how it grows.

I'd call that a load of balderdash.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'd call that a load of balderdash.

I don't think Darwinism is balderdash, superficially it's quite elegant and intuitive, as were Newton's laws of physics.

But therein lies the problem; trying to extrapolate intuitive observations in nature into comprehensive explanations of themselves.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't think Darwinism is balderdash, superficially it's quite elegant and intuitive, as were Newton's laws of physics.

But therein lies the problem; trying to extrapolate intuitive observations in nature into comprehensive explanations of themselves.

No I'm talking about your commentary on it. That is what is balderdash.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'd call that a load of balderdash.

I think you are being too kind.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think you are being too kind.

I'm saying what I can within the confines of the site's rules.

 

[Mountainmike]

This is the claim I see brought up a lot from people who do not accept evolution and Creationists (I am separating them because though there is an overlap there is a difference): that evolutionary theory is worthless or wrong or of less value because it is 'just a theory'?

So why is evolution considered 'just a theory' but other scientific theories are not called 'just theories'?

Something I've been curious on.

Because there is no such thing as “ the” theory of Evolution. As in one
its an assumption made by evolution “ believers” who don’t understand what is actually there.

What is there is a mixture of beliefs, ideas, a few hypotheses , some theories primarily in molecular genetics And pure speculation, there is no such thing as one coherent all encompassing theory of evolution.

so it is not people who “ don’t accept evolution”: (everyone accepts man’s ability to breed dogs with long ears)
but there are those sensible people who dont accept the atheist narrative on scope and extent .

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because there is no such thing as “ the” theory of Evolution. As in one
its an assumption made by evolution “ believers” who don’t understand what is actually there.

What is there is a mixture of beliefs, ideas, a few hypotheses , some theories primarily in molecular genetics And pure speculation, there is no such thing as one coherent all encompassing theory of evolution.

so it is not people who “ don’t accept evolution”: (everyone accepts man’s ability to breed dogs with long ears)
but there are those sensible people who dont accept the atheist narrative on scope and extent .

And to use a term I used before: a load of pure balderdash.

 

[Mountainmike]

No I'm talking about your commentary on it. That is what is balderdash.

But then guy was spot on. I suggest you confine to analytic argument not insults.

 

[Mountainmike]

And to use a term I used before: a load of pure balderdash.

So you ask a question in the title , but Refuse to discuss the answer.

so What in your opinion is “ the” theory of evolution.
confine yourself please to statements that use the correct scientific defintion of theory. Use words correctly please.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But then guy was spot on. I suggest you confine to analytic argument not insults.

But you don't offer analytical argument. You just spout claims and when you're called out on them, you switch the topic or just run with your head in the sand.

If you were right, you would have a vested interest to actually show the world, not just random nobodies on a singular forum website (and I'm including myself in that nobodies) that your claim that the theory of evolution is incorrect and actually set out to try and show the scientific community as a whole that they're wrong.

But you won't. You'll talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk.

 

[BCP1928]

Because there is no such thing as “ the” theory of Evolution. As in one
its an assumption made by evolution “ believers” who don’t understand what is actually there.

What is there is a mixture of beliefs, ideas, a few hypotheses , some theories primarily in molecular genetics And pure speculation, there is no such thing as one coherent all encompassing theory of evolution.

so it is not people who “ don’t accept evolution”: (everyone accepts man’s ability to breed dogs with long ears)
but there are those sensible people who dont accept the atheist narrative on scope and extent .

Why do you call it an "atheist narrative?"