>>17
If people disregard theories because of the name, that's not a fault of the name, it's a fault of them not understanding what theory means. Theories are so much bigger than facts; theories comprise THOUSANDS of facts.
Take Atomic Theory for example. In any high school level science or physics class, you'll learn about Atomic Theory. With Atomic Theory, we've been able to build a worldwide power grid. Home electronics. Microprocessors. Nuclear reactors. We went to the moon for fuck's sake.
They're never going to change that to "Atomic Fact". Theory means so much more than fact.
As for Evolution versus Creationism, there is one thing they both seem to agree on to me: first comes the Earth, then comes the plants, next the animals, and then finally man.
Please go die. Religion is a fairy tale, and nothing is more insulting to knowledge than such gross oversimplifications of evolution for the sole purpose of forcing an agreement with religion.
Besides, that statement isn't even true. The Bible presents an order of creation that is totally contrary to evidence:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1_1.html
I wonder what we'd all say if we were to positively discover that the truth was somewhere in the middle?
WE'VE ALREADY POSITIVELY DISCOVERED the truth. It's evolution. There is a staggering MOUNTAIN of evidence for this fact. Why would it be somewhere "in between" when there's no reason whatsoever for the biblical account to be true?
Religious idiots, get the FUCK out of /sci/.