If I understand your plan correctly, the idea is basically to concede that the theory of how it happens is "just a theory", so it becomes easier for them to accept the fact that species actually evolve - since they already accept micro-evolution.
From my experience with creationists their main issue is they would rather <insert something really, really nasty> than admit they share a common ancestor with any non-human species. Basically, it's a matter of ego for them.
I base this claim on two observations:
1) When debating an inexperienced creastionist they'll sometimes have a slip of the tongue: "I just can't imagine we've descended from apes.".
2) If a creationist knows almost nothing about evolution, the one thing they do know is that it claims humans are descended from other animals.
In other words, their problem isn't with the theory of how species evolve, but with the fact that it actually happened. Therefore, I don't think your idea would have any effect.
Not really. I'm starting to like this quote more and more:
"Theory
Most people use the word theory to mean uncertainty, guesswork, or a rough idea, but in science it has a different meaning. A scientific theory explains facts or phenomena that have been shown to be true by repeated independent tests and experiments. An educated guess in science is called a hypothesis.
Scientific theories are not laws, which describe phenomena thought to be invariable. Theories are generally used to describe why certain laws work. For example, the law of gravity is known to be true for falling bodies, but how and why it works is explained by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. Einstein's theory was accepted as true only after repeated experimentation and observation. Yet not even laws are absolute. They are rarely overturned, but they may be amended should new data warrant it."
--Maia Weinstock
Not a lot of people understand that 'theory' in science is different than 'theory' on
CSI:Miami. That version is really a hypothesis, a word that needs greater exposure.
I just want to take the emphasis off of the word 'theory'. I mean, really, we can't even say that the debate is between the 'theory of evolution' and the 'hypothesis of intelligent design' because it ain't even a hypothesis.
I feel that, by referring to the
process of evolution in any situation where opinions can be swayed from the ID camp, it sounds less vague. More
real.
I agree on the matter of ego that you raise. I mean, it's really a philosophical question that doesn't belong in a science classroom. According to their belief, god is so perfect that he (or she) is completely undetectable and untestable. Period. There is absolutely no way for us to design a 'test to determine god'.
Which makes me question, why do they so crave the stink of respectability from the scientific community? I would think that this would be a sign that their faith is weak. To believe in whatever god or gods you choose despite the mountains of scientific facts should be worn as a badge of honour among the religious communities, I would think.
Also, you could point out that evolutionary theory doesn't say that we descended from apes, but that we share a common ancestor. I'd think that if apes grasped the concept they'd be pretty revulsed to think that
we evolved from
them.
Or you could point out that the bible says that we were created from dust, or some translations say slime. Which is more humbling?
