"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."?

Question

The above quote is from acclaimed sci-fi writer Isaac Asimov.

Everyone, what do you think of the quote?

Personally, I think it may be true in many cases with Creationists.

Answer 1

Asimov is my favorite fiction and non-fiction writer.  It's too bad that he isn't still around to help us fight against the Creationists.

Answer 2

"Theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact".

Theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is NOT necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

In short it can be what someone dreamed up, regardless of sobriety.

Get A Grip

Answer 3

I think they are speaking from experience. After all, isn't that what creation sounds like?

Answer 4

No, I don't believe that a theory is a bad thing. However, it MUST be substantiated with good evidence!

GOD bless

Answer 5

They do brutally misuse the word, yes.

Answer 6

Sounds about right.  They think "theory" and "hypothesis" mean the same thing.  I thought that even 8th grade science class makes it very clear that the two are quite different.

Should this apply to other fields where the word "theory" means something other than "guess"?  How about "Music Theory"?  Why don't we hear creationists saying "Well the idea that the notes C, E and G make up a C major triad, is claimed in Music Theory, which of course is just a theory..."

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fa...

Answer 7

Its pretty much true of all of them, as none of them actually know enough about science to be able to form any rational questions about it.

    "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)

    "A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)

    "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)

    "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)

    "Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)

    "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)

    "[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86–87)  

Answer 8

Let me tell you what a theory ISN'T

It ISN'T a LAW!

Answer 9

I understand that a theory is not fact.  

Answer 10

I've got a theory it could be bunnies.  

Answer 11

I think it definitely rings true.

A theory without the scientific method to reinforce it is merely an idea.

Not all ideas are good, particularly the ones people come up with while imbibing.

Answer 12

I like that one. Asimov also said, "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." I agree with both quotes.

Answer 13

Some creationists do seem to disregard theories simply because of their theory status. Which is odd. It takes a lot to be accepted as a valid scientific theory, and to be a law... That's very uncommon.

Yay for Isaac Asimov!

Answer 14

The casual use of the word does mean that so it's somewhat understandable that people can be confused.  A new word should be made up for scientific theories.

Answer 15

Theory to them implies uncertainity.

Scientifically, 'theory' means something that has substantial evidence to prove a natural phenomenon.  

Answer 16

True, they don't seem to have taken 8th grade Science class, and tend to use the phrase "Waah, a theory is just that, a THEORY"

Yeah? So what....look up "Scientific Theory" online and educate yourselves, you cretins.

Plus, they don't actually see the distinction between Evolution and the Theory of Evolution.

Maybe I'll explain it concisely here, in case any young-earthers are reading.

Evolution is a fact, people. It is observable, testable, it is something that happens.

The Theory of Evolution involves the mechanics and reasons behind why it happens. Of course, it is not 100 percent provable, but it doesn't chhange the fact of Evolution itself. QED.

It would be like saying that Gravity may not exist, because "The Theory of Gravity is just that, a THEORY!"

Just because we don't know for absolute certain how gravity occurs, we don't just float off into space while we're trying to figure it out.

Answer 17

It's very funny, given that the flimsy lies that Creationists use (like "just a theory"), sound like the sort of stuff that they come up with when drunk.  Of course, since they spend so much time carefully polishing the lies, that I'm sure it could drive them to drink.

Answer 18

They never pair theory with science or scientific.

Almost on purpose I'd imagine.

Answer 19

Sure, it probably is the case with some creationists.

Some theories are pretty dumb though, especially when someone refuses to break away from their beliefs and explains away evidence that contradicts their precious theory.  Like Dawkins believing that the likely reason there's the stamp of intelligent design on all life is because of intelligent space aliens who dropped life off here.

Yes, he was serious.  He'll believe anything as long as it's not the G-word.

Answer 20

Definitely some of them.

Answer 21

Yes.  They seem to forget that every single contrivance in their lives is based upon one theory or another, from their cell phones to milk in their refrigerators.