Creationists: Just a theory?

[Zazzy]

Scientists shot themselves in a foot slightly when they called string theory a theory when it's more a string hypothesis.

Physics operates under different rules than Biology, and I kind of get why: they have less ability to experimentally prove ideas. Mathematical models have to be enough for many areas of physics which still yield extremely valuable insights. In Biology, as I well know due to lots of unpublished data, it's not enough to show it in an experiment- you have to have convincing explanations for your data as well.

I usually don't argue with creationists, because they usually can't even give me an adequate definition of evolution, and that means I have to try to raise them from scratch, which is wearying to do again and again. I'd be just delighted if a creationist came up with a NEW argument for me to think about.

[Minimalist]

They don't do "new."

[Zazzy]

They don't do "new."

Ain't THAT the truth. I had high hopes that someone in the ID camp would at least be creative and exercise my mind a bit, but it's the same old retreads gussied up in sciency language. Yawn.

[Doubting Thomas]

They need to be told that gravity is only a theory, too.

[LastPoet]

Creationism isn't even a hypothesis, It is a sorry excuse for the willingly ignorant to remain so.

[Captain Colostomy]

I'm surprised Statler hasn't stirred a turd in this punchbowl yet.

[Doubting Thomas]

Yeah it doesn't take him long to get wound up over evolution, does it?

[MythRat]

[*Deidre*]

For many, religion is science.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

For many, religion is science.

I've been told by a hindu once that the entire scripture is science. Back then I was too polite to say anything and just gave her an incredulous look. If only I can redo that encounter ...