The YEC creation of "Darwinist"

[shernren]

1. Science is based on "marginal" errors
2. Science is forever changing its product
3. Science is not perfect
4. You have to speak another language to fully understand it
5. Only scientist can know this language

I'd say all these critiques apply equally severely to theology. In fact, nos. 4 and 5 apply far more severely: to be good with science you only need English and a scientific bent, but to be good with theology you probably need at least speaker-level comprehension (if not better) in the extinct languages of Ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek; and that's if you don't feel like taking up Ugaritic and all the other sister languages to specialize in comparative mythological analyses of OT.

Yet the common man is asked to accept this on the trust that scientist know what they are doing.

Yes, they are, aren't they? I find this as galling as you do. The media consistently portrays science as something the common man has to accept on trust. A scientific discovery is practically preached in the newspapers: "Holy Prophet X of Science has descended from the Mountain with a New Scientific Truth - bow and accept it, or forevermore be called an Idiot!"

But science doesn't actually work on trust. The quickest way to get a reputation, from what I hear, is to go out and prove some other scientist wrong in an ingenious way - if I can disprove Einstein, or even force his theories to be significantly modified, I must have something on him! You will only hear of scientific discoveries - you won't hear about how scientists strive to check those discoveries for flaws and errors, how methodology is debated, how every other theory has to be checked to see if it fits with the new observation. These things aren't reported simply because they're not sexy news; but many scientific papers are available for free online, and they're often readable (if not always understandable) to anyone who has background knowledge in the field.

What would happen if evolution was actually proven to be wrong. Scientist everywhere will be ridiculed and will lose all credibility

Nopes. If evolution were to be disproven, it would mean that another theory had come along which was able to predict everything it predicted and more. That would mean practically a renaissance in the field of biology: new technology would spring up like mushrooms.

 

[KerrMetric]

I disagree, the scientist involved in evolution study would not be credible, and would probably be replaced.

Rubbish. Do you know what tenure is?

I agree there would be more funding, but there is already another accepted theory, and to try and find a new theory other then that would cause quite a stir

A big stir - the kind that gets you a Nobel prize or similar accolades and money and funding.

You're being obtuse.

 

[simplyg123]

Rubbish. Do you know what tenure is?

sure but wouldnt false evaluation disqualify that

 

[KerrMetric]

sure but wouldnt false evaluation disqualify that

Are you actually serious with this?

 

[simplyg123]

Why would i not be, you are obviously insinuating something, so why not speak your mind

 

[Melethiel]

Any scientist that manages to disprove evolution and propose a better theory would likely get a Nobel prize. As KM said however, that likely wouldn't happen. Science builds upon itself. When someone came up with Relativity, that doesn't mean that Newton's Laws were thrown out. Atomic theory continues to be refined, but we don't completely throw out the old way of looking at things.

 

[random_guy]

sure but wouldnt false evaluation disqualify that

I don't think you understand tenure. It would take a hell of a lot to get rid of a professor with tenure. Look at Behe. His entire biology department put out a statement against ID, but he still has his job. This is despite the fact that he was slaughtered at the Dover trial, and said that if ID was scientific, then so is astrology. Yet, he still has his job. At my school, I have a pro-ID professor. However, he's one of the most respected professors in the math-biology department because his views does not affect the quality of his research. Your views do not matter if you continue to publish scientific papers.

 

[Assyrian]

Has everybody forgotten those sad picture of all the physics professors out of work when Einstein disproved Newton's laws?

Oh sorry. No, that didn't happen did it. Wrong pictures.