Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
Anyways, gotta love it, don't ya? especially how ignorant people don't understand the meaning of the word 'theory'
Dumbasses like this equate theory with it's popular meaning of hypothesis, educated guess, or hunch.
The 'theory' is Darwinism, but the concept of of one species descending from another, is considered to be scientific fact.
The 'Theory" is a well substantiated naturalistic explanation for a related set of facts.
Other famous theories include, relativity, plate tectonics, and gravity.
The things that all modern science is based upon The tenets of all we know are, really, theories.
|
Actually, I believe that
you are the one that doesn't understand the word "theory."
At the risk of lending these creationists credibility, the word "theory" means exactly the same thing in science as it does in English. It is a common misconception that scientists use the word "theory" to mean "scientific fact." They don't.
Sometimes, scientists need to refer to ideas that
appear to be observable facts, in that these ideas always appear to be true. Scientists call these ideas "laws."
There are no theories, or even laws, that scientists will not abandon if they ever contradict (new) observation.
ARTelevision has already stated this in post #32 but he didn't quote the original context so I have repeated this, here.
Now, as far as the thread topic goes, Intelligent Design is not (as many have already shown) testable and is, therefore, by definition, not science. As such, I would hope to never find this taught in any science class. However, this isn't to say that it can't be taught in school. There are a myriad of high school classes (at least, there are in my country) and who's to say that Intelligent Design can't be taught in, say, Religious Studies? Or maybe Social Studies? Somewhere appropriate...