About that last part where creationism is a theory? Nope Sorry doesnt fit the definition of a theory. You of course are free to call it whatever you like. The same as if you called Butter, Pig Shit. doenst make the butter any more pig shit than it does making Pig Shit, butter. They both are byproducts of Animal Husbandry, they both contain Highly Ordered Hydrocarbon compounds and are prone to decomposition by bacteria.
This is where the intelligence falls down of course. Most people, yourself included of course JoeKu havent the foggiest notion of what a Theory actuall is. I will Enlighten You.
Theory (thee-u-ry Gk 'theorein' to look at) n: A step in the scientific method in which a statement is generated on the basis of highly confirmed hypotheses and is used to generalize about conditions not yet tested.
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory. -source Wiki
Scientific Method: refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world, as well as the correction and integration of previous knowledge, based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning.
Although specialized procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass whole domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.
There are a number of different ways of outlining the basic method shared by all of the fields of scientific inquiry. The following examples are typical classifications of the most important components of the method on which there is very wide agreement in the scientific community and among philosophers of science, each of which are subject only to marginal disagreements about a few very specific aspects.
Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
- Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
-
Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
Understanding. Identification of the cause or causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent. Before a factor that is the object of research can be said to be understood, the following conditions must be met:
Covariation of events. The hypothesized cause must correlate with observed effect.
Time-order relationship. The hypothesized cause must occur before observed effect.
-
Elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process which requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate the results to validate them.
The last of these is the most frequently contentious area, which leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases. -sources Wiki, NASA, Cambridge University, MIT
The problem is of course that creationism as a "Theory" doesnt meet the qualifcations of a theory as defined by the scientific method. Now you may go right ahead and call it a theory if you wish, but to a scientist, and yes Before you go there I AM a Scientist having earned a Bachelors of Science Degree in Computer Science and in Physics with a Math Minor from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Makes me a pedigreed member of the class of folks known as Scientists, creationism can not be a Theory by definition as Creationism does not meet Tenet number 3 of a theory: it is not testable. You Cannot Test whether there exists A God you may only believe there is or isnt. By definition from the bible: Faith is the evidence of things not seen. A Theory (remember that greek root form?) means to look at. Therefore by that logic creationism (the belief that there is a God and that he created the universe in 7 days) is no more a Theory than say, cream cheese being Portland Cement.
Again it doesnt meet the definition of a Theory in that it is not predictive. Creationism does not and can not predict from past evidence what future possible paths are available to anything within its domain.
And again it doesnt meet the definition of a Theory in that it is not logicaly consistent. Logicaly consistent means that it must not argue with itself on major points of contention. Yet Creationsim does just that when it says that a creator created items in a specific order from the Sun Moon Stars an Seas to Man and has at its central point a being who is a direct image of said creator and that being who is perfect in all ways manufactured something that was not in itself perfect. I am of course speaking of mankind here as Mankind is made with flaws and a creator who created everything in the universe and who is himself perfect would not create a flawed being as the art or science of creation is to add order to chaos not to add chaos to order.
So in no way does creationism meet the definition of a theory yet you would call it that. Fine, but dont expect people who actually use their heads for something other than a hatrack to accept your premise tht creationism is a theory.
And dont expect a scientist who is worth his degree to do anything but laugh at you when you bring up that "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism" should be given equal time in the science department.
You want the Philosophy department not the Science department my child they are a little more "open minded" over there.
.
