My standpoint on "Separation of Church & State"

[duo17]

Originally posted by neon_duke

Actually, there are more than two possible choices. Allow me to demonstrate. The origin of the Universe is (choose one only):

1) A natural occurance which we do not yet fully understand, because we do not currently have the technology to provide data allowing us to derive a logical conclusion - but please ask again in a hundred years; or

2) A supernatural occurance which we can not understand at all, because it was performed by an invisible and all powerful being too huge for our puny minds to ever comprehend; so don't bother asking any more questions, thank you, good day, don't call us, we'll call you, run along...

I know which answer I like better.
:smilewink

The second one seems like its a little one sided
I guess its ok though.

To everyone else reading these posts: If your not sure about how you feel about the subject and if you might want to change from aethist (sp?) to religion or vice versa, choose for yourself, don't only read these posts and decide. You need to go out there and check for yourself to see what you think is right.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by infallible
How, in school, can you study history without being taught a little theology? you can't.

There are limits in teaching theology and religion in school, for example the statement "and this religion is correct" or the statement "as an assignment, everyone must go to church on sunday" can not be said.

We are to learn from our past right? Well to do that we need to learn from religion and theology also, considering it's role in the past. Therefore, my official standpoint on the seperation of church and state is as follows: When dealing with the seperation of church and state in the united states of america, under no circumstance whatsoever shall any religion of theological lifestyle (i'd underline that if I knew how) will be imposed on anyone. But, all major religions, should (i'd underline that if i knew how) be common knowledge to the majority of the united states society, and all major religions should be incorporated within educational teachings, in the subject of history, science, english and foreign language. Religion(s) should be taught in the forementioned courses considering the religion(s) value in: history, the crusades, mid east, the buddhist history etc etc; science, to express the different views on creationism and other different beliefs held by different religions etc etc; english, to study old style texts, incorporate some of the worlds "heritage" into english; and foreign languages because not every religious text is going to be found in the english language.


More or less, i've written that without extensive thought, but it is pretty much how I feel.

I just wanted to acknowlege your post that I agree with what your saying there... It makes sence, and I don't see where any freedoms are being compromised by that type of presentation, but rather the freedom of the quest of knowlege is being embrassed even though some might view is as a Gypsy side show...complete with crystal balls... (J/K there neon, you really don't think we use crystal balls do you? )



*just look at that horse, the poor thing has been dead for days now*

 

[boombexus]

Originally posted by duo17


To everyone else reading these posts: If your not sure about how you feel about the subject and if you might want to change from aethist (sp?) to religion or vice versa, choose for yourself, don't only read these posts and decide. You need to go out there and check for yourself to see what you think is right.

I am positive about how I feel on the subject, that is why I have decided to stay out of this conversation and just watch. It's been very insightful from both standpoints. Good thread here, good job by Pako and neon_duke for your insight and well thought out replies. I have enjoyed this thread very much.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Pako
I just wanted to acknowlege your post that I agree with what your saying there... It makes sence, and I don't see where any freedoms are being compromised by that type of presentation, but rather the freedom of the quest of knowlege is being embraced

Sure, and I agree as well. I've maintained throughout this thread that religion should certainly be taught as part of the humanities/social studies curriculum.

So, next topic? Or are we going to wait for rjensen and jpec to put their two cents together and throw them in?

I don't expect to get many bites on the 'collectivism' thread, but ya never know. I do have a couple of other grenades I could pull the pins out of...

 

[boombexus]

Pull away and lob my friend.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by boombexus
Pull away and lob my friend.

Yesh...

I was thinking of making a contribution to this thread, but unfortunately, I'm in the position where I can't say anything until someone else "pulls the next pin", so I'll just wait.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by neon_duke

Sure, and I agree as well. I've maintained throughout this thread that religion should certainly be taught as part of the humanities/social studies curriculum.

So, next topic? Or are we going to wait for rjensen and jpec to put their two cents together and throw them in?

I don't expect to get many bites on the 'collectivism' thread, but ya never know. I do have a couple of other grenades I could pull the pins out of...

, I don't know man.... It appears that this (as stated before) is a rotting corpse of a horse that continues to be beaten.... But there still my be a little life left in it.

As they say in the defence department...."PUSH THE BUTTON, GO ON AND JUST PUSH IT!!!"

So what would be the next great topic neon_duke? Free energy? Cosmic Realities? Parallel universes? Quantum physics (fact or fiction)? Does God exist? Does evolution work for the modern single mom? Why are apes still around? Who is smarter, the garilla that eats banana's or the human that feeds it? Can a red head still be a blonde at heart? Is there life beyond earth or are we it? Can we ourselves be god? Is Microsoft the devil and is Bill Gates the anti-Christ?

It's late and I should really get some sleep...

Until we sip coffee again,

 

[boombexus]

Hmmmm, is there life beyond earth or are we it. Interesting, very interesting.

Although, the red head and blond one is an interesting topic as well!

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by boombexus
I have enjoyed this thread very much.

I've enjoyed it as well.... It's good to see some positive input and thoughtful post that stimulate the networks of the brain.

I would like to commend everyone for keeping a certain level of maturity in this (what can be) a very touchy subject. Kudo's!!! Especially to neon_duke.

~Peace~

 

[boombexus]

I shall echo that statement that Pako just made. I have actually learned quite a bit by reading this thread.

 

[rjensen11]

Originally posted by M5Power


Since when is that a spelling error?

Also, he wasn't referring to a specific god, so god does not need to be capatalised.

He said god. It should either be "a god" or "God."

 

[rjensen11]

Originally posted by infallible
How, in school, can you study history without being taught a little theology? you can't.

There are limits in teaching theology and religion in school, for example the statement "and this religion is correct" or the statement "as an assignment, everyone must go to church on sunday" can not be said.

We are to learn from our past right? Well to do that we need to learn from religion and theology also, considering it's role in the past. Therefore, my official standpoint on the seperation of church and state is as follows: When dealing with the seperation of church and state in the united states of america, under no circumstance whatsoever shall any religion of theological lifestyle (i'd underline that if I knew how) will be imposed on anyone. But, all major religions, should (i'd underline that if i knew how) be common knowledge to the majority of the united states society, and all major religions should be incorporated within educational teachings, in the subject of history, science, english and foreign language. Religion(s) should be taught in the forementioned courses considering the religion(s) value in: history, the crusades, mid east, the buddhist history etc etc; science, to express the different views on creationism and other different beliefs held by different religions etc etc; english, to study old style texts, incorporate some of the worlds "heritage" into english; and foreign languages because not every religious text is going to be found in the english language.


More or less, i've written that without extensive thought, but it is pretty much how I feel.

Yes, I agree big time. The main problem with "Separation of Church and State" is that if anybody says anything even the faintest relation to a religion, even saying "God" in a speach, is considered a violation. In AP European History, we watched a video on the Muslim religion, and that's something along the lines of how this "law" should be breached. I'm not saying we have to say "This is the only way to think," but rather that we must know all the viewpoints.

 

[Duke]

He said god. It should either be "a god" or "God."

Wow. Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees. Let's worry about basic rules of grammar and spelling, shall we, before picking nits of that tiny scale?

The main problem with "Separation of Church and State" is that if anybody says anything even the faintest relation to a religion, even saying "God" in a speach, is considered a violation. In AP European History, we watched a video on the Muslim religion, and that's something along the lines of how this "law" should be breached.

Religious Conservatives love to overstate this case in precisely the way rjensen just did. They do so by refusing to acknowledge the difference between discussing (a) god as an active, ever-present being, and god as an abstract, mythological part of human culture.

The first one is not acceptable in a public school forum, but the second one is. There is a clear difference between watching a documentary video on the Moslem faith and calling on God to bless the students of the class. It helps the Religious Right's case to blur that distinction, in order to make it appear that the 'separation' is unfairly applied against them.

Nobody ever got in trouble for teaching about religion - Christian or otherwise - in a historical/cultural perspective, unless they did so with an unfair bias towards or against one religion, or did so in terms of teaching faith in an active, 'real' god.

Admit that there is a difference, and you will see that the separation is not biased.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by neon_duke

Admit that there is a difference, and you will see that the separation is not biased.

But as was discussed earlier, it is biased to exclude the possibility of creation as the origin on the universe. Every day we're faced with opinions and idea's that we don't agree with. Based on someone elses reality, the process of creation should NOT be excluded as it is clear that many other people have different views on realtiy. Since we don't know for sure, nor have any concrete evidence either way, we have to be open to all the posibilities. When science can prove one way or the other than fine, we will limit our speculation to hard facts.....but since this is not the case today, we can't pretend that we know what we're taking about and "just" present one theory adopted by evolution.

Discovering who we are and where we came from is science mixed in with a dose of philosophy, and regardless of the end result, arn't we all looking for the same answer, where we came from?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Pako
Since we don't know for sure, nor have any concrete evidence either way, we have to be open to all the posibilities.

I have to disagree with you on the first part of your statement, and if you look at it objectively, I think you'd disagree with it as well.

There is concrete evidence all around us, in the fossil record and the geological information contained in our physical environment. All of the positive evidence so far discovered fully supports the geological/evolutionary theory.

As I stated previously, nothing can be negatively proven. There is no positive evidence - pro or con - concerning the existence of god, one way or the other. Period. Lack of positive evidence does not mean god doesn't exist, but conversely negative evidence does not mean god does exist. When you are concerned with negative evidence, something's existence or non-existence is a null issue.

Science can by definition only be concerned with observable, objective, positive evidence. Therefore, Creation (which relies on negative evidence) has no place being taught as a 'theory' of how the Earth came to be.

Those who choose to disregard positive evidence as their yardstick, and who wish to place faith in negative evidence, are free to do so. They are free to learn about Creation within a realm that does not require positive evidence; i.e. the humanities curriculum. Since their 'view of reality' does not rest on positive evidence, it is not contradicted by anything taught in science class. Their fundamental philosophy is not affected by anything based on positive evidence. As a corollary to that, when Creation is taught within the Humanities, it does not contradict the rationalist view of reality either - since rationalists only rely upon positive, objective evidence.

But when Creation is taught as a parallel theory to Evolution, it is implicit that there is positive evidence in support of Creation. Which is simply not true, no matter how you choose to look at it.

And to a person who does base their 'view of reality' on positive evidence, when something based on negative evidence is given the same weight as if it had positive evidence, it does contradict their fundamental philosophy.

Note that I am agreeing with you that Creationism should be taught. But the method and realm of that teaching determines whether it is contradictory or not.

 

[Pako]

I believe it goes deeper than that. We don't have proof of the origin of the universe or even the earth for the matter. What we do have is what you described, the process of what we call evolution that we derive our conclusions on how life organisms have changed to adhear to their environment. This process is not direct supporting facts for evolution being the cause of the origin of the universe any more than creation.

I'll put together a graph or timeline when I have a chance to better explain my point visually.

[edited] In this statement I'm not discounting or disproving either point, as that is not the issue here. The point is that we should be open to multiple possibilities until proven otherwise. Now we don't entertain the thought of aliens creating the earth as an experiment, because it is not generally accepted, but creation is. Science has shown us that there are other possibilities as well, other than creation.....so evolution is an additional concept to creation.

 

[Duke]

But we do have proof. I'm not claiming it is all-inclusive, or that it clearly explains the answer to every question.

I'm just saying that all the physical proof supports a completely physical explanation. Note that it cannot contradict a supernatural explanantion for the reasons I stated above. However, nothing except faith supports a supernatural explanation.

This is a crucial point and I can't quite tell if you understand it or not.

[Edit:] I'm not denying that all types of explanation should be taught. BUT (and it is an important 'but') - that doesn't mean that all types of explanation are created equal and can be judged relative to each other. Natural and supernatural explanations don't meet the same criteria. They can't both be considered 'theories'. No matter how firmly you may believe the Creation story, it is still a myth.

 

[Pako]

Ok, .... We have documented, scientific evidence of researched data that has been compiled and interprited to arive at certain conclusions. So lets talk about the Bible for a minute. Although much of the Bible is divine inspiration by God to the people that put it into words, many account occurances described are actual, documented, historical events. Through science, alot of these events have been verified, but not one event has been scientifically disproven. We have scientific documentation of what, a couple hundred years, whereas the Bible is a collection of several different writers, spanning thousands of years, with not one contridiction throughout the entire Bible. You want proof? There is documented proof, it is up to you how that data is interprited. This is not negitive proof, but positive, documented proof. How can this be classified as myth or urban legend? It can't, it's in a class of it's own not to be confused with mystisism.

 

[Duke]

I hate to say it, but you're missing the critical point. The fact of the event is documented and considered as an actual occurrance. Positive proof that something occurred, and not an issue. That's not the question here.

But to say that God caused something is totally conjecture! There's no proof of that at all. NONE. That's why it remains a myth. While there is physical evidence supporting that an event occurred, there is no physical evidence at all to show that it was supernatural in origin. That's such a critical difference I have to believe you are willfully not seeing it.

Lets take the issue of The Flood. There is geological evidence that a cataclysmic flood event occurred in the appropriate time frame. We will take as a given that the event itself is a fact.

Simplistically speaking, the Bible says that God drowned the entire Earth in order to punish sinful humans. That's a supernatural explanation, and cannot be derived from the mere physical evidence that a flood occurred. You need to accept on faith the existience of a divine being, and then guess at His motives.

However, the geological evidence gives us positive proof that a huge earthquake in what is now Turkey - a tectonically unstable area to this day - occurred at that time of the flood. This caused the north side of the Straights of Bosporus to subside by about 15 feet, which in turn allowed a very substantial portion of the Mediterranean to suddenly empty itself into the Black Sea, annihilating millions of square miles surrounding the area.

If you were a primitive person - to whom nearly everything is a non-understood, supernatural event - living at the edge of this horrific event, it would be natural to assume 'god caused it'. If your world was limited to the horizons you could walk to, the of course it would seem that the whole world was destroyed.

Note, however, that there is not widespread physical evidence occuring at the same time frame, indicating any large-scale flooding in other parts of the globe. This does in fact contradict the Biblical story, which states literally that the entire Earth was flooded for 40 days and 40 nights.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe the Biblical story of Noah as anything other than a myth, devised to explain a huge event in the lives of the locals.

Physically it is not borne out as described in the Bible, and the supernatural explanantion as to why it occurred can never be taken beyond face value.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by neon_duke


Note, however, that there is not widespread physical evidence occuring at the same time frame, indicating any large-scale flooding in other parts of the globe.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe the Biblical story of Noah as anything other than a myth, devised to explain a huge event in the lives of the locals.

Physically it is not borne out as described in the Bible, and the supernatural explanantion as to why it occurred can never be taken beyond face value.

Woah! Hold on there... Are you talking about negitive proof that the entire earth wasn't covered by the flood? Because there isn't scientific proof that it happened, then it must not have happened?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. We are so intertwined with our concepts how can any one concept be ignored and left in the corner when another concept is being taught as scientific fact of something that can't be proven?

Humm....interesting isn't it. I do see your point of myth vs. reality and we can speculate until we're blue in the face, but until there is undeniable proof that states otherwise, our government should not deny our youth possible tools that they need to make a logical decision on their own. There is a undisputable truth out there somewhere, and until I die, I have to use faith for reassurance in this area. You also have to have faith in the scienctific order of things (which is still just coming to be a influencial force in our society) until you die, or until science gives us the tools to detect such an event (which will be in a couple of hundred years )

This is totally off topic of the original thread, but here goes...

I'll just explain what's more logical for me. Let me just assume for a minute that I have never witnessed any acts of God ever interviening with my life or anyone elses. I am left with a gamble of choice. I can choose one of two things. 1.) That there is a power greater than myself that has control over things that I do not. 2.) The only power that has control over my life is myself as I am the sole director of me trying to figure out what life is all about, and that when I die, that's it....game over.

Now to me, really, when I die....either way it's really not going to matter, except I have more to gain in the long run if I do infact keep my faith. If I'm wrong, then it's a stail-mate. So the logical choice for me just based on that, is to believe in a God.

I don't doubt that you live a fullfilling life and can draw strenght from yourself and your wife. I'm not saying that you don't have a set of morals of "good" standards, but why gamble on enternity when you don't even have any facts to prove otherwise?

BTW - There's scientic proof that when the body dies and brain activity ceases, the weight of the body actually decreases. This evidence cannot be scientifically proven. There is speculation that the friction created by the moving particals in our body cease to be active, that there is less gravitational pull on the body mass...., but this is pure speculation and not a hard fast rule, as other living organisms retain their body weight after they die.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Pako
We have scientific documentation of what, a couple hundred years, whereas the Bible is a collection of several different writers, spanning thousands of years, with not one contridiction throughout the entire Bible.

Actually, scientific investigation and discovery has been a fairly continuous process throughout recorded history. Certainly the ancient Greeks had successfully determined that the world was indeed round, and had calculated its circumference to a remarkable degree of accuracy, at least a thousand years before the birth of Christ. Which was 3,000 years ago...

Also, I've had similar conversations in other forums, and I have heard other people assert the idea that the Bible contains 'not one contradiction'. I don't understand how that can be said, but I need to do some digging for specific examples.

"Ah'll be baaaahck."

[Edit:] I just removed the extra zero in the number above. I wouldn't want anybody to think I believed Christ was 30,000 years ago.

 

[Pako]

Yes the Greeks.... . I laugh because I just watched "....Greek Wedding" the other day, it was humorous.. Yes I have heard that as well. And what of the ancient Egyptians with their understanding of physics and astroligy. Quite fasinating. And the rest of the ancient cultures that continue to fascinate us with how advanced they were in culture. Very interesting indeed.

We'll see ya when you come back...

 

[Sage]

(Just a side note to Pako's "after-life" comment, not to try and get off-subject):

But then, why not believe in reincarnation, or any other form of "living for eternity"?

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by youth_cycler
(Just a side note to Pako's "after-life" comment, not to try and get off-subject):

But then, why not believe in reincarnation, or any other form of "living for eternity"?

Because from what I understand of reincarnation, there is no "self" intervention that is required. If that is the case, it will happen without any decisions having to be made on my part.

What other forms of "living for eternity" are you talking about? Other religions such as Buddism, Hinduism...ect?

 

[Duke]

Woah! Hold on there... Are you talking about negitive proof that the entire earth wasn't covered by the flood? Because there isn't scientific proof that it happened, then it must not have happened?

No, not at all. I did not say that it must not have happened. But I did say that there is no reason to believe that it did happen, since the idea of a worldwide flood is not borne out by the geological proof.

This is exactly what I'm talki ng about. We are so intertwined with our concepts how can any one concept be ignored and left in the corner when another concept is being taught as scientific fact of something that can't be proven?

Because you need to be very careful in your understanding of each concept and how it relates to the objective world. Certainly, if you suspend objectivity and rationality, then there are no valid criteria for judging any concept. So I don't do that.

I have more to gain in the long run if I do infact keep my faith. If I'm wrong, then it's a stail-mate. So the logical choice for me just based on that, is to believe in a God.

{B}but why gamble on enternity when you don't even have any facts to prove otherwise?

I'm glad to see that you can accept me as a moral person without a religion. That's more than many of your brethren are capable of doing.

I see it differently. I don't see rationality as a gamble. I see it as confidence in my own being. Effectively, what you're doing is hedging your bets, figuring you can 'win' either way. You can't.

If I tried to go that route, I would be cheating myself out of the deepest understanding of my life and the purpose of living it. I would be cheating myself out of the fullness of joy in this life, on the off-chance that there would be a next life to make up for it. If I place my goals in the afterlife, the best I can hope for in this life is a dim reflection of that assumed and gambled-on glory. But if I set my goals in the physical life I actually hold, and I live up to them well, I can have the full measure of that glory and that joy here and now. And it will not be dependent on how well I guess the motivations of some unseen being, or on the question of whether that being even exists - it will be dependent on my own criteria and how well I meet them.


You're right, I don't have any facts that prove there is no God. But I (or you) don't have any facts that prove there is a God, either. It's a wash. So why should I throw away the physical world and my right to a place in it? Those things exist, physically, and in the total absence of evidence superceding them, I couldn't begin to live my life by any other principles.

 

[Duke]

Because from what I understand of reincarnation, there is no "self" intervention that is required. If that is the case, it will happen without any decisions having to be made on my part.

Actually, that's not true. At least in Hinduism, the quality of your next incarnation is entirely dependent on how well you live this one. If you are 'good', you may come back as a person in better circumstances. If you are 'bad', you may come back as a rat or a cockroach or something. You keep repeating this process until you make a 'perfect lap', at which point you are admitted to Nirvana and no longer have to practice by living in various physical forms.

 

[Duke]

This one is pretty relevant:

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Those deal with the subject of Creation. Which is correct? How do they not contradict each other? Regardless of that, the second version also contradicts the fossil record which clearly gives evidence showing that there were beasts alive before human beings. While it is true [*sigh*] that this doesn't prove man wasn't alive before the animals, it does contradict the statement made in the Bible, which was presented as uncontradictable.

Here's another set, dealing with the issue of a physical, visible God:

Ex. 33:23 "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
Ex. 33:11 "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
Gen. 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."
Ex. 33:20 "And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live."
1 Tim. 6:16 "Whom no man hath seen nor can see."

Explain those away?

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by neon_duke

Actually, that's not true. At least in Hinduism, the quality of your next incarnation is entirely dependent on how well you live this one. If you are 'good', you may come back as a person in better circumstances. If you are 'bad', you may come back as a rat or a cockroach or something. You keep repeating this process until you make a 'perfect lap', at which point you are admitted to Nirvana and no longer have to practice by living in various physical forms.

That's right....Karma.... I forgot about that. I'll get to your other posts in a bit.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by neon_duke
This one is pretty relevant:

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Those deal with the subject of Creation. Which is correct? How do they not contradict each other? Regardless of that, the second version also contradicts the fossil record which clearly gives evidence showing that there were beasts alive before human beings. While it is true [*sigh*] that this doesn't prove man wasn't alive before the animals, it does contradict the statement made in the Bible, which was presented as uncontradictable.

Here's another set, dealing with the issue of a physical, visible God:

Ex. 33:23 "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
Ex. 33:11 "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
Gen. 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."
Ex. 33:20 "And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live."
1 Tim. 6:16 "Whom no man hath seen nor can see."

Explain those away?

I'll have to look at the Hebrew translations and get back to ya...

 

[rjensen11]

Duke, while you say that Evolution is a theory, that is correct. When you say Creation is NOT a theory, well, that can be taken two ways:

1) Where people think it's true: Creation isn't a theory, it's fact, it's what happened, and that's the end of it!

Or 2) Where people don't call it fact, but it IS then a theory.

Since it CANNOT be proven, then it IS a theory. While it is not a SCIENTIFIC theory, it is still the basic form: A theory.
Evolution is a scientific theory.

The two theories are based off of different beliefs. The scientific theory has to do with tangible evidence. It's stuff that must be able to be proven by multiple tests and using fancy machines(I know this doesn't sound right, but just bear with me for a second, okay?)

Creation is a theory based on what many people, most of the world, believes is told by parts of the Truth(Not partly true, notice the difference.)

So by saying it's not a theory can be taken seriously and the only way you could think this is you believe in it. The only way you can think of it AS a theory is if you don't believe in it, or believe in it partly.