Why the problem with the word 'theory'?

[SelfSim]

To be honest, I think this is the first time I've seen this idea put forward.

Hope it puts us a little closer to being on track with the intent of your OP ..

PS: (Apologies for my having to make a clarfiying edit to my previous post).

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

Hope I'm not repeating views already posted by others; but surely history shows that people were heavily persecuted for thinking beyond the bounds of religious scriptures. This is still happening in present day times.

What are these Scripture you are talking about?

Way back in the middle ages the Bible was banned -- by the persecutors to whom you are possibly(?) referring.

Oh, you mean the Koran? Look sideways at it and there's the moslem mob excuse to rape, pillage, murder..... . How 'bout the Communist Manifesto? Thoughts of Chairman Mao(?).

Quick. Make up a Scriptures. Then you can start on what you are talking about, in person. Whatever that may be.

Here you are, since reading entries doesn't appear to be in your line. Repeating:
"The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances"-- Michael Faraday

Possibly of the most loved, respected, humblest scientist of all time, esteemed a genius by Einstein himself -- relying on the bible to guide him -- and now you suggest, a closet persecutor?? Do a service, Check your cognitive powers before commenting.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

All my question in the original post asks is: why do creationists have a problem with the word theory when it's used to apply to the theory of evolution but not other theories in science?

They do? I seldom read young earth stuff. I am a geologist. Since we seem to be talking about word meanings(?), what say we start with 'Creationist.' Literally, someone who believes the universe and some or all its contents was created. All mainstream scientists running up to Einstein fall in this category and probably most after him to boot. I am assuming the OP was dictionary and history based. We all can look up a dictionary.
Sequential revelation of life is a fact, not a theory. With the advent of modern quantum biophysics, the methods involved are on the verge of graduating from theory (needing to be proved by a mathematical pathway) to a fact. The facts in prospect happen to have been foreshadowed by implication by the scripture. I deal with this on-line as previously mentioned.

 

[SelfSim]

Hope I'm not repeating views already posted by others; but surely history shows that people were heavily persecuted for thinking beyond the bounds of religious scriptures. This is still happening in present day times.

What are these Scripture you are talking about?

History abounds with recorded details of the ramifications of Apostasy.

Oh, you mean the Koran? Look sideways at it and there's the moslem mob excuse to rape, pillage, murder..... . How 'bout the Communist Manifesto? Thoughts of Chairman Mao(?).

Quick. Make up a Scriptures. Then you can start on what you are talking about, in person. Whatever that may be.

Sir, I'm not sure whether it is your deliberate intention or not, but the increasingly sarcastic tones in your responses makes it difficult to know whether or not you are expecting a serious reply(?) .. and who knows how you could rationally defend such an evidently, overtly cynical outlook(?)

Here you are, since reading entries doesn't appear to be in your line. Repeating:
"The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances"-- Michael Faraday

I couldn't care less about sweeping generalisations made by Michael Faraday. Why should I? You can 'repeat' it until you're blue in the face .. it makes zero difference.

.. Do a service, Check your cognitive powers before commenting.

That is an outright personal insult. Be careful sir .. you violate forum rules on me .. and I'll report you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All my question in the original post asks is: why do creationists have a problem with the word theory when it's used to apply to the theory of evolution but not other theories in science?

They do? I seldom read young earth stuff. I am a geologist. Since we seem to be talking about word meanings(?), what say we start with 'Creationist.' Literally, someone who believes the universe and some or all its contents was created. All mainstream scientists running up to Einstein fall in this category and probably most after him to boot. I am assuming the OP was dictionary and history based. We all can look up a dictionary.
Sequential revelation of life is a fact, not a theory. With the advent of modern quantum biophysics, the methods involved are on the verge of graduating from theory (needing to be proved by a mathematical pathway) to a fact. The facts in prospect happen to have been foreshadowed by implication by the scripture. I deal with this on-line as previously mentioned.

The question in the first post is clear cut, given the topic of this sub-forum, and really should need to be dissected as much as you want it to.
Again, I'm going to ask you to leave this thread because you are clearly not here to even attempt to answer the question in the OP genuinely.

 

[Speedwell]

Hope I'm not repeating views already posted by others; but surely history shows that people were heavily persecuted for thinking beyond the bounds of religious scriptures. This is still happening in present day times.

What are these Scripture you are talking about?

Way back in the middle ages the Bible was banned -- by the persecutors to whom you are possibly(?) referring.

Oh, you mean the Koran? Look sideways at it and there's the moslem mob excuse to rape, pillage, murder..... . How 'bout the Communist Manifesto? Thoughts of Chairman Mao(?).

Quick. Make up a Scriptures. Then you can start on what you are talking about, in person. Whatever that may be.

Here you are, since reading entries doesn't appear to be in your line. Repeating:
"The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances"-- Michael Faraday

Possibly of the most loved, respected, humblest scientist of all time, esteemed a genius by Einstein himself -- relying on the bible to guide him -- and now you suggest, a closet persecutor?? Do a service, Check your cognitive powers before commenting.

There's that Faraday quote again. Why is it important to you that we know he was a Protestant?

 

[Speedwell]

They do? I seldom read young earth stuff. I am a geologist. Since we seem to be talking about word meanings(?), what say we start with 'Creationist.' Literally, someone who believes the universe and some or all its contents was created. All mainstream scientists running up to Einstein fall in this category and probably most after him to boot. I am assuming the OP was dictionary and history based. We all can look up a dictionary.

Because there are theists on both sides of the issue in this forum, the term "creationist" is customarily used to mean biblical creationist, someone who has an issue with science because it contradicts their reading of scripture. A person who tries to turn the creation/evolution debate into a struggle between theism and atheism is generally regarded as a scoundrel.

 

[pitabread]

This is just wrong. A scientist will propose a hypothesis to explain observations. A hypothesis may become a scientific theory or part of a theory if it is well-established by repeated testing and confirmation - otherwise it will be modified or discarded. A scientific theory doesn't become a law. A scientific law is a concise scientific description of some well-established phenomenon.

Scientific theory → a well-substantiated explanation of some phenomenon.
Scientific law → a concise description of a well-established phenomenon.

It never ceases to amaze me how people will endlessly criticize science, but then get basics like this completely wrong.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It never ceases to amaze me how people will endlessly criticize science, but then get basics like this completely wrong.

Yes, straw-man criticism is rather a sad waste of time for all involved.

 

[Philip Bruce Heywood]

Because there are theists on both sides of the issue in this forum, the term "creationist" is customarily used to mean biblical creationist, someone who has an issue with science because it contradicts their reading of scripture. A person who tries to turn the creation/evolution debate into a struggle between theism and atheism is generally regarded as a scoundrel.
As I suspected this is a good site and a good service set up by good people, whose beneficence and purpose is constantly undermined by people who have a problem entertaining themselves through the lonely hours and run a talk fest by conversing in a different language to everyone else. Just re-write English, re-write science and history, re-write the real world about us, avoid reading writing 'writhmetic, above all, avoid facts and avoid changing the never-ceasing rotating script.

 

[Speedwell]

Because there are theists on both sides of the issue in this forum, the term "creationist" is customarily used to mean biblical creationist, someone who has an issue with science because it contradicts their reading of scripture. A person who tries to turn the creation/evolution debate into a struggle between theism and atheism is generally regarded as a scoundrel.
As I suspected this is a good site and a good service set up by good people, whose beneficence and purpose is constantly undermined by people who have a problem entertaining themselves through the lonely hours and run a talk fest by conversing in a different language to everyone else. Just re-write English, re-write science and history, re-write the real world about us, avoid reading writing 'writhmetic, above all, avoid facts and avoid changing the never-ceasing rotating script.

All I was doing was trying to explain a local custom to you. All theists are in some sense creationists, so it would be redundant to apply the term to them indiscriminately in a forum which is primarily devoted to biblical creationism vs. biological evolution where there are theists on both sides of the question. In any case, the existence of God is not an issue here, except for the occasional eccentric who wants to turn the biblical creation vs. evolution discussion into a theism vs. atheism debate.

 

[SelfSim]

.. and avoid changing the never-ceasing rotating script.

Shifting perspectives is a fundamental communications technique and a fundamental means for loosening learning 'blockages'.
Fixed reference frames thus perpetuate ignorance ...

Your argument appears to reject the primary means of acquiring wisdom(?)