Re: Evolution: What Real Scientists Have to Say
medved wrote:Nearly the whole world thought the Earth was flat in 1491; anybody could have tried to argue that such a majority opinion simply had to be correct and, as we all know, they'd have been dead wrong.
...the flat Earth paradigm existed because the evidence disproving that theory wasn't available yet.
Fools trying to discredit the entire institution of science based on the fact that science is a self correcting process is reaching epidemic proportions. I just responded to a similar argument from Foxfyre in the "Spirit Realm" thread.
Listen. Scientfic theories are descriptors of reality. It is the nature of science to constantly improve and build upon theories to make these approximations more accurate. For example, we know that Newtonian Mechanics is flawed. It is extremely accurate withen its range of validity, but beyond that it begins to break down. This doesn't mean that Newton was wrong though, it just means that his theory was incomplete because the evidence he needed to tie it together was not available until years after his death.
A person entering into the sciences with a pre-supposition about the validity of evolutionary theory is not evidence of bias, it is an example of how science only progresses when new practitioners build on the work of thier predeccessors.
Now, listen carefully. My point is this: I doubt very much that anyone entering the field pre-supposed evolution before it became generally accepted by the academy.
This theory won through based on its own merit. Intelligent design only exists because its proponants originally approached the matter already believing it to be true.
Quote:Similarly, we hear that the vast majority of scientists supposedly accept the theory of evolution without reservation. The only problem is, that the really serious scientists who have made any effort to dig into the topic, generally reject it. It's only those who don't really know anything about it and certain kinds of atheistic-leaning and ideologically-motivated neophytes who claim to support the theory any more.
This is bullsh
it. The vast, vast majority of scientists subscribe to evolotion because it has consistantly proven to be the theory with the most merit - it is based on the best available facts, not conjecture.
Intelligent design proponants (ie - Creation Scientists) believe what they believe based on a pre-determined conclusion that evolution must be wrong because it conflicts with thier religion.
Name some
respected scientists who support Intelligent Design theory. Thanks.
