If evolution is a theory, then why do Atheists discount other theories as unscientific...?

Question

...even though discoveries have forced the evolution theory to be changed hundreds of times, and not one discovery has forced the creation theory to be changed, or disprove the existence of God?

Answer 1

So you're saying that because creationism is dogmatic, it's better science?

You know that the definition you posted just answered your question. Creationism isn't a SCIENTIFIC theory (which is the first definition) because there is no evidence, it is a speculation (the second definition)

Answer 2

Other theories don't have as much scientific backing or make as much logical sense.  

Answer 3

There are far too many facts against evolution for it to even be possible, let alone a fact. For one example, what is the reason, or even the chance that an atmosphere could have developed on it's own to support life, along with the surrounding planets orbiting the sun, and all keeping their orbit in the expanse of the universe with no visible support, and earth's seasons, plant life, food for every kind of living creature and human in every variety that tastes good, can be used in seasoning, for health needs, and made into delicious recipes to be tasted and enjoyed.The complexities of life that we take for granted or are too busy to think about, were made to all fit together and all work together to sustain life. I have studied evolution and found it to to offer a poor explanation of how and why we are here, the meaning and causes of suffering, injustice and where we are going. People believe what they want or what they were taught without thinking much farther than that. You have a good question and good points. I noticed that a few seemed a little angry that you aren't one who accepts evolution. There are a great deal of people who really want to think we just got here with no purpose, no reason, by some freak accident, this way they feel that they aren't accountable to anyone except themselves.

Answer 4

Well, you are obviously biased.

A theory has to have some backing to be considered valid from a scientific standpoint. Evolution does have this. Creationism is at most an unfounded hypothesis.

You say no discovery has forced the creation "theory" to change. It has been modified countless times and anything going against it is automatically disregarded by the religious community. Don't try to argue science with religion posing as science.

Answer 5

Creationism isn't a theory or even a valid hypothesis. Learn how science works.

Answer 6

Well I accept the Atom theory, the big bang theory

and the theory of evolution

what other theories do you want me to accept? The "theory" of adam and eve? No.

Answer 7

please re-read the definition of theory with regards to science.

for example, the following scenario is NOT a scientific theory:

Every wednesday the bins in my back yard get tipped over, and all the rubbish get's spread out, I have a theory that it's my neighbour who has a grudge against me.

This is what we call conjecture. There's no evidence, it is just an opinion, a point of view, a hunch.

Succint, but apt:

In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

See, not complicated to understand, but once again, you creationists are like a drunk man aiming for the bowl but hitting the toothbrushes.

Answer 8

Cause we're just crazy like that!

Answer 9

Biological evolution is a fact. The mechanism of evolution is the theory part.

Answer 10

Creationism is like the game Jenga.

Answer 11

A scientific theory is not the same thing as a theory about who took the last cookie.  The ToE is a scientific theory that is supported by mountains of evidence. Creationism isn't a scientific theory.

Answer 12

Exactly. Evolution is one of God's ways to animal kind.

I can believe in evolution because of it's supports, but God's behind it.

Answer 13

right, but not ONE theory has proven creation.  The creation theory is not seen as scientific, so no one even wastes time trying to justify something that is a mere mythological story.  

Answer 14

That's rich, coming from a religious type!

Religion DOESN'T want PROOF! Proof belies faith! No matter what PROOF I showed you for the "non-existence" of something (a tautology, by the way), you wouldn't accept it.

Answer 15

In order for something to be a theory it must have solid evidence.  As far as I am concerned creation has no proof so it is not a theory.  You may want to change the terminology to creation hypothesis or creation idea.

It is really convenient for you that there is no way to disprove something you say we cannot see, hear, feel, etc.  O ya, just for your information the theory of evolution through natural selection hasn't been changed.  Certain ideas about things like the evolution of humans may have changed but not never the core idea behind evolution.

Answer 16

It's because MOST atheists are people who rely heavily on scientific proof. The evolution theory, though seriously flawed, is the closest this world has come to an explanation. So they grab it.  

Answer 17

Creationism isn't a scientific theory because it explains nothing and makes no testable predictions.  It doesn't even make it to the hypothesis level.  It's just an excuse to say, "We don't know how this happened, so let's say that God did it and never think about it again."

Answer 18

Scientific theories change over time, even our theory of gravity has changed and is about ready to change yet again.  True, the creation story has not changed, but then again, there is no evidence to support it so it doesn't have to change.  Science, on the other hand, has to match and explain the evidence.  This is why we now use the word "theory" rather than "law".

Answer 19

Evidence counts alot for evolution. The main principle behind evolution is still the same (all living organisms originated and descended from one living organism and evolved into different species). Which discoveries? Many speculations were made, some were true others proved otherwise.

You're right about "creation theory", because it is dogmatic and dictated that it can't change or everything falls apart in it. It lacks flexibility and change therefore is so weak and with less evidence. It is something said to be true by some ancient authors who were not involved in scientific methods and you can't consider it scientific. "Discoveries in creation theory" haha!

Here is a link describing how a theory can be said scientific:

http://www.astronomynotes.com/scimethd/s...

Answer 20

Because other theories have no evidence supporting them.

Also, it's okay to change theories.

____

Answer 21

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution.

Evidence for God = book written 2000 years ago full of holes, lies and contradictions.

x

Answer 22

It's the constant revision that makes Evolution a scientific theory. If it were based on nothing and assumed to be correct the whole time, it couldn't be called science at all. Evidence is key.

Answer 23

because people dont want to be accountable to an all powerful God

Answer 24

im an atheist and i am pretty open-minded. i just feel there is not enough evidence supporting the creation theory. or rather the evidence of evolution satisfies me more.

Answer 25

Actually, creation "theory" has outlined in the Bible was disproven centuries ago.  No flood.

To have your idea elevated to scientific theory, it has to be supported by evidence and make useful, testable predictions.  Evolution meets this, creationism doesn't.

If you have an idea, go get evidence and publish.  That's how science works.

And Theory:

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Answer 26

Creationism isn't even a theory.  At best, it is a failed hypothesis.  At worst, it's just dogmatic BS.

Answer 27

"The creation theory is like 2+2=4. It is very simple."

It is clearly not as it introduces a creator god that is in no way evidenced nor explained in any manner.  It actually adds complication.

And whilst I'm at it, a theory, in the scientific context, is a well documented, backed up and evidenced set of hypotheses, laws, observations and peer reviewed papers.  There is no "creation theory" under this context.

Answer 28

show me the evidence for the "theory of instant creation".  there isnt anything credible.  then as for the "existence of god" science has never tried to disprove god because god is supernatural.  science deals with explaining natural phenomena.  any evidence that goes against creationism is instantly seen as "invalid science" by creationists.

now can you tell me which one of those two definitions is a scientific theory?

Answer 29

The creation theory has been changed all sorts of ways. The thousand-year-in-one-day theory, the divine watchmaker theory, the stop-and-go theory where god made a few things and then paused and picked it up again after a couple thousand years had passed. . . a lot of things to try to get around the fact that it could not have happened as written in the Bible.

And now it's cloaked, revamped, and deceitfully marketed as "intelligent design." So that's at least four changes. There are more I don't have the time to bother with, since none are worth more than a glance.

Evolution is rethought and retested when a new fact comes up; Creationism is mildly adjusted to get around new facts.

I don't have to prove the nonexistence of god. I have nothing to prove. You're the one with something to prove; prove god.