Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Now either those creationists are uneducated as to the multiple 
> definitions of the word 'theory' and which one actually applies when one 
> talks about the 'theory of evolution' (hint, it's not the 'hypothesis of 
> evolution' definition, which is what they push), or they are deliberately 
> misusing the word so as to push their dogmatic approach to trying to make 
> creationism seem like science.

  One big problem is that most creationists (and in fact most laymen,
regardless of orientation) don't even understand what the theory of
evolution is about. They attribute all kinds of misconceptions to it
(and also deny many undeniable natural phenomena as being evolution).

  Moreover, many ID proponents muddle the waters even more by mixing all
kinds of natural sciences as being part of "evolution". You'll see them
claiming that different fields of astronomy, astrophysics, chemistry,
quantum mechanics, geology, paleontology and other fields of natural
sciences are part of "theory of evolution", even though those have nothing
to do with the theory, nor even with biology.

  Ironically, they not only vastly expand what their mythical concept of
"evolution" covers, to include fields of science that have nothing to do
with it, they on the other end deny natural phenomena which are part of
evolutionary theory as being "evolution".

  I suppose this is a very typical case of building a straw man.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message