Why do creationists think that a theory is just an opinion?
399298
When your own position holds no water and is based on fairy tales, your only recourse is to pigeon hole other positions as being of equally poor footing.\n\nCreationists spend most of their time trying to discredit evolution, which is the same thing evolutionists do.  Creationists are acting as scientists by doing so, and have actually contributed to the strength of evolutionary theory in that way!\n\nWhere creationists fail is by not realizing that attempting to falsify their own theory is what they should be trying to do in order to count as science.  Instead, they spend their time coming up with clever apologetic answers to the blatant problems in their position.  \n\nEvolution ultimately rests on the extremely simple observation of what replicators do in nonlinear systems.  \n\nCreationism has reams and reams of answers to specific problems people have discovered in their position, because there are no general principles.  Creationism has no predictive value whatsoever, it's just a hodge podge of apologetics.
1145681
Creationism is a fantasy. \nID is a pathetic attempt to legitimize the teaching of mythology in Science class. Thankfully the Dover schoolboard in PA took it to court and the ID'ers could not present a single testable hypothesis in thier argument.\nSadly, Kansas has seen fit to  hop on the short bus, helmets and drool bibs firmly in place.
1088968
Creationists believe in the bible. Their belief in the bible is arranged like a house of cards. Its validity depends upon every card being in place to support the others. Take away one card - such as what the bible says about the origin of mankind - and their entire faith collapses. That's a terribly painful, emotionally and intellectually, experience for them. It's more comfortable to deny science and go on blindly believing.
51529
I believe in both.  They need not be mutually exclusive.  \n\nSince neither can be totally proven beyond a doubt (one is based upon scientific research principles but remains a theory, and the other on a book written by men long after other ideologies existed (so, relatively recently) that men said was dictated by G-d and was translated who knows how many times into thousands of different languages (understand that translations are never exact, so when you have multiple translations, you'll have multiple interpretations)), it just boils down to deciding what feels right to one's self (for instance, it feels right to me that G-d - as a spritual entity, not as a conscious individual - created the universe of which evolution is a part).  \n\nIn the end, one's belief of evolution vs. creationism is not really going to have any bearing on what you're going to have for dinner tonight,  although other beliefs may (that means that it's basically a moot argument and good more for personal speculation and lively debate than an actual definitive answer).\n\nWhat a fun and fascinating question!
1097273
Evolution is only a theory.  If it is being taught as "fact" then they are doing you a disservice.
797870
Any creationist who believes things do not evolve are intellectually dishonest.  However, it is reasonable to expect that creationists would have a more limited definition of what 'evolving' encompasses.
499317
Because they know the evidence cannot be explained in light of creationism.  Therefore they ignore this aspect and instead attack evolution.  You could fill 1000's of warehouse's of why the evidence doesn't show creationism;  You couldn't fill a shoebox with the evidence for creationism.\n\nEvolution so far is being proven on a daily basis, and has mountains upon mountains of evidence confirming/supporting the Theory of Evolution.  Evolution as a biological process however is already fact!  There is no getting away from micro-evolution now matter how ardent a creationist you are.  What's left of this failing movement attacks Macro-Evolution, but they are always so far of the mark as to make their arguments laughable.\n\nI totally agree, just because you don't think evolution is true (and i find this an incredulous position) doesn't mean creationism is therefore true; but then creationism is just full of logical fallacies anyway.\n\nAnd to the commenter somewhere below me, 29+ evidences for MacroEvolution:\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/\n\n& this \nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
44109
Wow.  There is a staggering amount of ignorance exhibited in this thread.\n\nEvolution can be taught as science because it actually *is* science. Intelligent Design/Creationism is merely a faith based leap to "God did it!" Science is about observing, modelling, and predicting the universe around us.  Creationism is closing your eyes to the world and explaining everything by magic.\n\nHere's part of an answer I posted in another thread that addresses many of the same questions raised and misinformation spewed by some of the responses\nabove:\n\n---------\nThe trouble with most Creationists- scratch that. ONE of the troubles with most Creationists is that they seldom actually argue against evolution as it really is, but against straw-man charicatures of evolution. Rather than actually educating themselves about the subject they ask inane questions like "If man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" and then pat themselves on the back thinking they've scored points rather than revealing their ignorance about the subject. And then the choir they are preaching to nod their heads and agree.\n\nHere's a few simple things to remember:\n\n1. Evolution is NOT the study of how life began.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/abiogenesis.htm#Origins\n\n2. Evolution does NOT say man came from monkeys.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/\n\n3. There will be no "intermediary forms" if by that you expect to see a half-this/half-that critter, nor does evolution say there should be.\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm\n\n4. Evolution is not incompatible with religious faith. Plenty of scientists believe in both God and evolution. It is only incompatible with the literalist view of Genesis espoused by young earth creationists. Of course, these folks' views run counter to geology, physics, paleontology, archeology, and astronomy as well.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html\n\n\n5. While there is vigorous debate about some of the mechanisms and features of evolution, there is no doubt in the scientific community that evolution is real. OF COURSE you will find some cranks out there on the fringe who will fight against evolution (most making a tidy living giving talks to fundamentalist religious groups), just like there are historians who insist the Holocaust didn't occur. Every large enough group will have it's nutballs.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/\nhttp://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html\n\n\n6. Yes, speciation has been observed.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html\n\n7. "Theory" means something entirely different in scientific language than in colloquial use. In science, a theory is a well-tested model of how things work, not "just a guess."\nhttp://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm\n\n8. Evolution is not guided solely by random chance.\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html\n\nI personally don't care if somebody wants to believe that God, Allah, or the Tooth Fairy created the universe. What does bother me are those people who argue against a "cartoon" view of evolution because they feel that it threatens their faith, or because they are too lazy to learn what evolution is before choosing to try and smear it.\nSource(s):\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/\nhttp://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page\nhttp://www.origins.tv/darwin/evolution.htm\n----------------------\n\n\nFollowup:  Ummm.... You DO understand that Darwin was *ages* ago, and that the field of evolution has advanced light years beyond his notions right?  Darwin's ideas were formed in the 1830s-1850s, and he was unaware of genetics, radiometric dating, protein synthesis, plate tectonics, and a host of ot
925227
I completely agree with you, I never understand why people can't consider the idea of God planning evolution, a combination of the two just like you said.\n\nThe people who disagree are the ones who consider the Bible to be the absolute truth when it comes to God and creation, even the Atheists are doing it. The Bible is not a history book, even Christian Fundamentalists have interpreted creation in the Bible differently. If you remember that it's not 100% facts and keep an open mind, then people would understand.
568570
The fact that evolution is a theory that makes sense and that has evidence that supports it.\n\nCreationism is an irrational belief of those who are afraid of science and do not wish to get in their any more information than  "god created and controls everything, that is all i need to know", personally i think shows weakness of mind.  Creationist thinking has no way to even theorize how "god", "heaven", "hell", etc. might exist, while evolution has facts that supports it.
424830
No, almost by definition, a creationist believes what they do based on faith, even in the presence of overwhelming information disputing creationism.  If a delusional person believes they are Ceasar, for example, you cannot "prove" to them that they are not, no matter what evidence you give.  I don't mean to say creationists are delusional, just that a belief based upon faith is one that, by definition, neither needs any evidence nor is swayed by evidence.  In addition, evolution isn't "proven" it's just an extremely powerful theory that has a great deal of evidence supporting it, no real evidence disputing it, and seems to describe the real world as we know it very accurately.
499614
Excellent post.\n\nI get quite tired of the strawman versions of evolution and the scientific method trotted out by creationists.\n\nFor example, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution.  Zero.  \n\nWhere the first life form came from has nothing to do with evolution.  Zero.\n\nA theory is simply the best explanation for observable data.  We witness the diversity of life around us, and we must explain it somehow.  It is NOT meant to be proven.  Theories, in general, are not intended to be proven.\n\nFor example, gravity is a theory.  Is gravity false?  No.  Does gravity follow certain rules?  Absolutely!  Yet it is still a theory, and there ain't nothing wrong with that.\n\nYou well noted that some mechanisms of evolution are still not completely understood.  The theory, while perfectly valid, is not completely explained (just like gravity).  However, what creationists must keep in mind is that if any theory is going to replace evolution, it must explain ALL the evidence and data we have collected.  Genetics, fossil record, geological record, geographic isolation and allele frequency shift.\n\nAt the very best creationism (or ID) only points at the parts that science has not explained.  It offers no real alternative theory.\n\nLastly, the idea of "proof" for a "miracle" (meaning God's flooding of the earth) is oxymoronic, at best.  If there is proof (meaning observational data we can see today) then there is a natural explanation and God had nothing to do with it.  If it was a miracle, then there would be no evidence (since God suspended natural laws to make it happen).  Silly Christian fundamentalists, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
732459
As science demonstrates the evolutionary process in greater and greater detail, Creationists have to keep refining the rhetoric they use to disregard obvious facts.  They demand demontration of a new species arising, then when you show it to them, they demand a genus.  Show them a genus, they will demand a family.  I've actually seen demands for kingdom shifts.  They demand evolution be reproduced on a laboratory benchtop, but show them the results and they disregard them as artificial.  They claim there are no beneficial mutations, but show them one, and they disregard it for one reason or other.  Show them another that overcomes their objection, and they come up with a new objection.\n\nNothing has been demonstrated to adapt more rapidly than anti-evolution rhetoric.
1136881
As usual, there are a number of people who do not seem to know what a theory is, claiming that something is 'just' a theory, as though there is some higher category to ascend to when something is crowned a 'law' or something.\n\nScientific laws are descriptions of things that are observed, factual and proven.  They DO NOT provide an explanation as to WHY that observed factual process occurs.\n\nThe 'law' of gravity is that things fall.  That's it.  It doesn't provide any explanation of why things fall, or how they do it, just that they do.\n\nThere is indeed a 'law' of evolution, and that is that organisms are different than their parents.  It doesn't provide any explanation of why that might be, it is simply an observation.\n\nThe 'theory' of evolution is any attempt to explain this observation, just as the 'theory' of gravity attempts to explain why things fall.  Evidence is then gathered to either support or disprove this theory.  \n\nNow another big misconception comes in when people discuss 'The Theory of Evolution'.  What they are usually refering to by the 'Theory of Evolution' is the theory of speciation through natural selection that was first proposed by Charles Darwin as an explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.  This theory is indeed a theory, but it is not 'only a theory'.  There's no higher level to a theory.  It is either a valid theory, or it is disproved through contrary evidence.\n\nThe theory of speciation through natural selection is one of the most important theories in biology, and ALL evidence collected to date, from the fossil record, to genetic testing, to the biogeographic distribution of living species, to potassium/argon dating of rocks in the Canadian shield, to bacteria in hospitals developing resistance to antibiotics, to the pattern of magnetic reversals recorded in the bottom of the Atlantic ocean, to the wide diversity of different kinds of beetles, to the physiological similarities between leopards and jaguars ALL support the theory, and there hasn't been a single piece of evidence presented which has disproven the theory.\n\nSo evolution is both a fact (the fact that offspring differ genetically from their parents), and is also a theory (usually refering to the theory of speciation through natural selection, but there are actually dozens of additional, complementary theories of evolution as well).
636657
Which part of the theory? Remember theories are setup as place holders until disproven. They are not right or wrong as such.
858237
Peoples opinions are just opinions, neither right nor wrong until proved either right or wrong.\n\nPeople say that Neil Armstrong went to the moon, others say he didn't and that the video footage was a hoax.\n\nUntil this is proved, people can think what they like. But then you do have other factors controlling people's views: Propaganda, brainwashing. If someone states their opinion, a lot of people will jump in like headless chicken and follow the crowds\n\nIn the middle ages people believed that the world was flat. With proof everyone now knows the world is a sphere.\n\nAre space aliens really demons? Maybe, maybe not. Until we can actually find one and ask him "hey alien, are you a demon?", we can never find out...
638210
I agree with the above posters that Plate Tectonics is a theory that has achieved a broad scientific consensus, and that there is no debate about its general accuracy among geologists. But that doesn't really answer your question, does it?\n\nThe answer to your question is "yes," lots of people don't believe in Plate Tectonics, or at least don't believe in the scientific theory of plate tectonics as understood by geologists. These people are Creationists. If you believe the earth is only 5,000 years old, you can't well believe the continents spent 5 billion years drifting to their current locations. (Well, I guess you could, it's not much of a stretch compared to the rest of creationism. </editorial opinion>). \n\nSo Creationists tend to not believe the continents move at all, or to come up with alternative, Biblically consistent alternate theories to try to reconcile observable facts with their religion. They come up with things like "catastrophic plate tectonics," a non-scientific creationist theory that during Noah's flood, the continents moved 3,000 miles apart in a couple of months and then stopped.