Science can be stubborn about its current theories (explanations of reality) but science has changed its mind on issues before.
Since the scientific community tends to work using certain models that seem to explain reality and help them make predictions, making drastic alterations to those theories, or even completely replacing those theories takes years and years of research and hard evidence.
For example, when Einstein used relativity as a means of explaining the motion of planets it replaced newtonian physics when dealing with things of that scale. But it was more than just some formulas that seemed to explain things. There was a wobble in the orbit of one of the planets which was currently unexplained, when Einstein used relativity and plugged in the numbers, it worked perfectly. His theory made predictions and worked with what we observe in reality.
Other ideas in science aren't based on direct observation. String theory for example isn't really worthy of being called a theory yet. While the fancy math seems to work out, we don't have the hard evidence to support it yet. However, physicists know that in order to gain ground they need evidence so they use research methods like the particle collider in europe to find evidence of what they expect to see in the subatomic realm. While they don't have the evidence yet, they are trying to find it.
Moving from physics to the life sciences, we find that todays research is dominated by an evolution model. While doing double blind tests with phylogentic trees we get results that fit the predictions of evolution. When looking for oil companies who only care about money hire scientists that study core samples with the model of deep time and evolution. While researching diseases for cures companies only interested in finding a cure the fastest hire biologists who use an evolutionary model in their research. The evidence is there and it seems to fit with reality. If you work in those fields and you can't get results, you don't keep your job.
Then we have creationism. They try to tear down the evidence that is used in real jobs by real people, but given the environment that creationists tend to be in, it doesn't matter if they are actually right or wrong, they just need people to believe them and to buy their dvd series.
But is there even an attempt to find positive evidence for creationism? Well, AiG already put tens of millions into its museum to dupe gullible crowds into accepting their pseudoscience, and now they are going to put 24.5 million dollars into a replica of the ark that will be the central theme of a large scale theme park, with the intention of convincing people of the truth of a historical Genesis.
It should be obvious to most people that if you have a fringe theory, like string theory, and you think that it's possibly true, that you could invest millions of dollars into research. At the same time, if you have a fringe theory that you know can't be true and won't have any evidence, then you wouldn't waste millions of dollars actually doing research, instead you pump your money into museums and theme parks that are based on shallow theology so that you can keep the revenue stream alive.
When your best evidence is a theme park...
Since the scientific community tends to work using certain models that seem to explain reality and help them make predictions, making drastic alterations to those theories, or even completely replacing those theories takes years and years of research and hard evidence.
For example, when Einstein used relativity as a means of explaining the motion of planets it replaced newtonian physics when dealing with things of that scale. But it was more than just some formulas that seemed to explain things. There was a wobble in the orbit of one of the planets which was currently unexplained, when Einstein used relativity and plugged in the numbers, it worked perfectly. His theory made predictions and worked with what we observe in reality.
Other ideas in science aren't based on direct observation. String theory for example isn't really worthy of being called a theory yet. While the fancy math seems to work out, we don't have the hard evidence to support it yet. However, physicists know that in order to gain ground they need evidence so they use research methods like the particle collider in europe to find evidence of what they expect to see in the subatomic realm. While they don't have the evidence yet, they are trying to find it.
Moving from physics to the life sciences, we find that todays research is dominated by an evolution model. While doing double blind tests with phylogentic trees we get results that fit the predictions of evolution. When looking for oil companies who only care about money hire scientists that study core samples with the model of deep time and evolution. While researching diseases for cures companies only interested in finding a cure the fastest hire biologists who use an evolutionary model in their research. The evidence is there and it seems to fit with reality. If you work in those fields and you can't get results, you don't keep your job.
Then we have creationism. They try to tear down the evidence that is used in real jobs by real people, but given the environment that creationists tend to be in, it doesn't matter if they are actually right or wrong, they just need people to believe them and to buy their dvd series.
But is there even an attempt to find positive evidence for creationism? Well, AiG already put tens of millions into its museum to dupe gullible crowds into accepting their pseudoscience, and now they are going to put 24.5 million dollars into a replica of the ark that will be the central theme of a large scale theme park, with the intention of convincing people of the truth of a historical Genesis.
It should be obvious to most people that if you have a fringe theory, like string theory, and you think that it's possibly true, that you could invest millions of dollars into research. At the same time, if you have a fringe theory that you know can't be true and won't have any evidence, then you wouldn't waste millions of dollars actually doing research, instead you pump your money into museums and theme parks that are based on shallow theology so that you can keep the revenue stream alive.
When your best evidence is a theme park...