Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Every scientific experiment originates with a question. "Is there evidence of intelligent design?" is the question. The answer can be observed by studying the natural world. The problem with evolutionary theory is it isn't treated like a question but rather as a truth. Science has ceased asking questions and now seems content to prove their answer. Anyone doubting this so called "truth" is ridiculed. When Science starts disregarding questions because the person is religious or use the argument: "every respected scientist believes what I believe so it must be true" you know science has lost its way.
|
I think you are confusing the fact of evolution with the theory of evolution..
The fact of gravity is easily observed; drop an apple. The theory of gravity explains it.
The fact of evolution is the studying of the natural world. Organisms seem to change over time. Fossils for animals that do not exist anymore are found. The genetics of living organisms show all kinds of relationships and shared code. Uncountable other observations of nature, this is the fact of evolution. Most creationists do not dispute what is observed.
The theory of evolution explains it. It explains the mechanisms behind it, what drives it, why we see specific patters. It makes predictions that we verify through observation or experimentation. And evolution has changed dramatically since Darwin.
Science doesn't ridicule other theories.. people do. Some scientists will of course ridicule anyone with religious leanings just like some religious people will ridicule anyone not religious. So what? Science itself moves slow.
It's very simple, if the theories put forward by creationists are correct, eventually they will become the prevailing theory. Without question (unless science becomes outlawed or something). Science always self correct; that's the whole foundation of science.
The problem is that the theories put forward by creationists simply don't stand up to scrutiny. At best they highlight unanswered questions; things that aren't known yet.
When someone puts forward an alternate theory that explains the observations, and it gets ripped to shreds, that's the JOB of scientists. They're supposed to scrutinize a new theory and poke it and squeeze it to see if it holds together. If they don't then that's when science fails. If it holds together and better explains the observations, then it'll replace the prevailing theory. If not, it will fall away. It's happened thousands of times throughout history, there's no rational reason to expect it won't continue.