Webster
I find it fascinating that words are defined by the reader despite the author expressly stating that they are using the first definition in the dictionary.
From your source:
1 a: something held as an established opinion;
especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b: a code of such tenets <pedagogical
dogma>
c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
The definition you posted (as you said, first one in):
dogma: something held as an established opinion
Like I said, it's a rather broad definition. It still works, but using the broad interpretation allows you to apply "dogma" willy-nilly to whatever established idea you feel like applying it to.
However, in the case of evolution or the big bang, these are not
established opinions. The theories are held as valid by scientists not because of any establishment or authoritativeness, but rather because they
best explain the observed evidence. Scientists take the facts they observe, ad from that extract their theories. They then test their theories repeatedly, and refine or change when necessary.
This is why people are objecting to your use of the term. "Dogma" has certain implications, among them rigidity and close-mindedness. Science does not fall under this category. Science permits questions and change, provided there is evidence upon which the questions are based. To date, this is what the creationist movement lacks, and why they are reduced to nipping at the fringes and whining.
You sit there and you argue and you question, but you never get around to the important point of explaining how the theories are wrong (and scientists would love to hear about it, if you had a valid point of contention) or providing an alternative that explains everything observed, past tests and makes predictions that can be used in future tests.
Instead, you content yourself with "I don't think so" and wonder why the people here tear into your arguments when you attempt to use that as a basis for challenging well evidenced, well tested, and well studied scientific theories.
You are more than free not to think so, but don't try to berate others because they think so when you have nothing to support your claims, and continually hand-wave away all the evidence that is shown to you which supports the ideas you refuse to accept. It just makes you appear trollish.
I dunno about troll myself, I just picture you as the loyal opposition who sometimes gets carried away.
Please tell my what definition of "theory" you are using in the above thought.
That'd be the scientific one, as we're discussing scientific theories.
