Unfortunately, the 7th definition of "theory" from dictionary.com was "guess or conjecture." In the case of creation theory, that definition is quite fitting (although I would enjoy it so much better if "creation theory" was called "creation guess" or "creation conjecture" ). But the Big Bang theory and Darwin's theory (and all truly scientific theories) are much more than guesses and conjectures. What disappoints me is that this poor definition of "theory" can bring scientific theories like the Big Bang and evolution down to a creationist guess-or-conjecture level.

OK I can play too.

Sure, a theory is somewhat of a guess or conjecture. However, every theory is based on something. What makes a given theory worthwhile is what it happens to be based upon. So let me look at some theories and see where they take us:

Evolution theory: Based on a huge pile of evidence. Makes specific predictions that can be checked out. The predictions check out and thus confirm that the theory is good.

Creation theory: Based on a book. Makes no predictions and thus cannot be verified.

Electrical theory: I don't even need to examine this one. If you can see my words, then you are sitting in front of your computer. QEDB.

I wonder if he signed it.

That argument about theory and faith is just a tail chasing distraction. The terms have different uses depending on the context. The problem these MaGoos have is being able to keep them distinct. If it is convenient for them to blur the meanings of the words then that's what they'll do.

You'd think that a person would eventually have to stop and realize the level mental acrobatics they are performing to defend an idea. Sooner or later one would have to stop and say "odd that my idea doesn't stand on it's own merit and I have to keep ass fucking it to make it work"

Wishful thinking, I know.

I agree that there is a BIG difference between actual scientific theories and guess-or-conjecture theories. Just to clarify things, I wasn't meaning to suggest that creation theory and evolutionary theory (or Big Bang theory, etc.) were all on the same level - this is what the bulletin does, it lumps creation theory with evidence-backed scientific theory.

That's an old tactic along the lines of "teach the controversy". Television shows and newspapers like two-column-style debates, and our legal system is adversarial, so it's in the culture. Even when one position is completely unsupported by fact, and the other side is supported to the gills, the adversarial system makes both sides look equal in philosophical weight.

When that doesn't work, the more pathetic side will often resort to martyrdom or David-and-Goliath reframing, as though oppression has anything to do with rigorous inquiry. That's what makes debate on this topic so exasperating: people like Dinesh D'Souza are taken seriously, rather than like the clowns they are.

Welcome to the boards!

The predictability of this sequence of events is both amusing and exasperating. Any purveyor of nonsense, especially those hacks of alternative medicine, will follow a highly predictable sequence of events.

To begin with, they shall propose something which is complete nonsense, in total violation of rigorously established principles and often resorting to vague and ultimately meaningless terminology or some component of the process involving some sort of magic, often literally, such as intelligent design, or people who claim to have violated the laws of thermodynamics by producing a device for continuously converting heat into work without any apparent cyclical process as required by the second law of thermodynamics:

The reason that the diagram is complete nonsense is because a heat engine that takes in heat energy and converts it into useful work must work in a cycle. If it didn't work in a cycle we wouldn't be able to extract useful work from the system beyond it's physical limits (for a piston, these conditions are the maximum expansion that the piston can perform), as a gas cannot expand forever. Clausius showed that any cyclical system cannot extract all of the heat energy from a thermal reservoir. It must eject heat energy into a cold reservoir. Because the gas must be reset to an initial system by having work done on the piston (usually by means of an isobaric compression followed by an isovolumetric increase in temperature). As a consequence, over time the heat engine will lose the ability to do work as the gradient of temperature between the reservoirs decreases. This is a very fundamental way to state the second law of thermodynamics (the Kelvin-Planck formation) which is equivalent to the Boltzmann formulation and the Clausius formulation. As there is no cyclical process in the diagram above, it appears to operate by some sort of magic, hence the term "magic heat engine".

After being backed into the corner by genuine learned professionals, they will offer a combination of defenses. To begin with they will offer the "David defense" and compare themselves to Pasteur, Copernicus, etc. claiming that they have discovered something so advanced and that they are being persecuted for it, are putting up a David v Goliath struggle against the scientific community.

This usually doesn't work. Thus, the next step is claiming that their detractors (i.e learned professionals with real expertise) are involved in some conspiracy or are in the pocket of someone who is, like the drug companies, or the oil companies, or are protecting their research grant etc. ad infinitum. I've heard them all before.

This works pretty well (with the aim of convincing dimly lit bulbs), but the coup de grace comes with the final move. In this, the hack attempts to completely outmanuever all criticism by appealing to postmodernism. There are three ways of doing this. The first is to claim that science is just one “way of knowing” and that their beliefs are just as valid as those gathered by rigorous scientific processes contradicting them. This appeals to aforementioned dim bulbs because it seems “fair” to “both sides” (two terms that are employed often by said hacks). The second (related) tactic is to admit that, while their claims have no rational basis, they don’t have to, since rational processes of discovering things about reality are just arbitrary anyway. The final tactic is to claim that their assertions are somehow special as they pertain to notions “beyond the realm of scientific investigation” which, in my eyes at least is tantamount to stating “completely meaningless from an epistemological standpoint”. What makes me very surprised that this tactic is successful is that this is so blatant a special pleading fallacy that I cannot fathom how it latches on.