What IS a Theory?
Merrium-Webster defines “theory” (one of its definitions) as: “a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption.” It is interesting to me that there is SO much hubbub over the “Theory” of Evolution. The rub seems to come from the idea (HORRORS!) that we should NOT be allowed to teach Creationism in schools. OK. Why not? What are they afraid of? Creationism is a “theory” of what could have happened (granted for many of us, it is simply believed to be true, but let’s put that aside for a moment.) Evolution is also a “theory” of what could have happened. Do we have anyone present that witnessed creation (or, the “big bang”, or whatever you choose to call it?) Do I see any hands? No? Well then, it seems that in the marketplace of ideas, we could, and should, calmly discuss the relative merits of all generally proposed “theories.” After all, if a “theory” is “an unproven assumption,” then we could intellectually consider either as possible methodologies, couldn’t we? Oh, NO! Not if we are high school students. That is simply not allowed! Hummmm… who, exactly, is afraid to be put in the position of “defending their faith?” Yep. The evolutionists. Relax, guys! Creationists don’t bite. But we seem to have a more intellectual position than you evolutionists; if we are willing to discuss the matter in front of students with inquiring minds. Here’s a link to what got me thinking along these lines:
Bush mentions “Intelligent Design”
We have already made the concession that we don’t have to mention “God” by name (in discussing the theory of “Intelligent Design”)… just so you touchy folks won’t get too nervous! We KNOW how sensitive you can be! But, you won’t even allow a “non-confrontational” discussion of creationism to be presented as “A THEORY”… so, what are we to do? Simply take evolution totally “on faith?” Oh! That’s right. It is OK to take evolution “on faith”… but not creationism. Who is the more scientific? Open minded? Intellectually honest? [Bang !] Got ya!