"We accepted the products of science, but rejected its methods" - Carl Sagan.
thefalliblefiend aatt hotmail ddoott com
Of the techniques creationists use to perpetrate their falsehoods, among the most popular is the bait-and-switch. They take a scientific term and then use it in a way that is non-scientific - to sort of bring it down to the level of the layperson. Sometimes this is okay, but scientific laws and principles only hold for for the scientific definitions of terms.
One of the biggest lies creationists tell is that "Evolution is merely a theory" or "Evolution is just a theory." They then go on to tell you some stupid story about a great teacher they had who taught them this and how grateful they are to the buffoon who told them this nonsense.
How can creationists get away with this misrepresentation? Well, there are two kinds of creationist - there is the leadership (a kind of pseudointellectual intelligentsia) and there are the repeaters (brain-dead followers). The leadership generate urban legends which the repeaters spread all over the world. There just isn't any claim so stupid that the repeaters won't assert to everyone that it's been proven by science. "Second law disproves evolution!" "Radiocarbon dating disproves evolution!"
The rely on one crucial fact - the repeaters are far too intellectually lazy to actually try to understand the subject before they pass on these contrived urban legends as incontrovertible fact.
Words have different meanings in different contexts. In science, the only definitions that count are the ones that are developed for that domain. What most people call a "theory," a scientist would call a "speculation." In fact, Merriam-Webster's definition of 'theory' includes "speculation," which is directly contrary to the scientific definition. When someone talks about evolution being a "mere theory" or "just a theory," it's time to roll your eyes, because they're clearly using the layperson's definition and not the scientist's definition.
Here's a pretty lucid explanation of fact and theory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
I have not memorized definitions for these words, but I'll try to give a stab now of what each of these words means in the domain of science. If they are screwed up, it's my fault alone and not the fault of evil evolutionists.
A fact is something that is observed over and over again or something that is assumed to be true. A fact CAN BE false, but it's something in which we have a pretty high degree of confidence.
A (scientific) theory is an explanation which ties together numerous (disparate) observations and which produces hypotheses which can prove the theory false, IF IT IS FALSE.
A law is a statement of some basic principle that seems to describe something we observe in nature. For example, the first law of thermodynamics thermodynamics states that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, but can change form.
An hypothesis is a conjecture derived from a theory which can be used to disprove the theory or confirm (NOT PROVE) the theory.
A speculation is an idea that may or may not have any supporting evidence and may or may not produce testable hypotheses.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution has been observed - and even many creationists will admit this; however, they creationist who admit that evolution occurs will say that microevolution is a fact while macroevolution is a theory.
For a while they referred to change between species as macro-evolution. Then they figured out that change between species was actually observed. So now they say that change between species is not macro-evolution. What is macro-evolution? Any amount of a evolution that is not observable in a single human life time!
Why do they use this definition? It's kind of funny, really. They are under the mistaken impression that a thing really isn't a fact if you don't see it. How they came to this comic book understanding of science, I'm not sure. Probably it was their intelligentsia who help to "explain" it to them.
By this dishonest definition, gravity and electrons are not facts. You don't have to SEE something for it to be fact.
thefalliblefiend aatt hotmail ddoott com