" If they are not ultimately responsible for what they posit, they are only spinning tales.
Look what happens when an evolutionary notion is debunked after a better notions comes along--nobody dies from a bad reaction, no bridge falls down, no piece of shuttle garbage explodes. The notion just goes to some sort of purgatory."
Yep. That's why these discussions are largely pointless for all parties involved.
The evolution scientists are not really scientists -- at least not in the classical sense. They are more like forensic detectives; the real hard sciences are the ones which have experiments and can be put to the test over and over again in the lab.
They are putting together a story from a record of facts. The facts exist but they can't be re-created or reproduced in our lifetimes so they make conclusions based on the facts that they have found. They know they don't have all the facts but they don't what they are missing, either. They make assumptions to fill in the blanks. Then those assumptions stack up onto more assumptions and steer the conclusions a certain way.
Therefore they are putting together a story which looks like what they think happened but at the end of the day it's just a story. There are innocent people in jail sometimes because the detectives developed the wrong conclusion. There is virutally no contention about the parts of the evolution picture which can be demonstrated in a lab -- speciation, for example. But the far-reaching conclusion about common descent is just a story based on lots of assumptions using incomplete data.
If the evos would stick to teaching what we absolutely know by reproducible, testable lab work then there would be virtually no contention about this subject. It's when their assumptions about common descent are broadcast as being on the same level as those lab experiments that they meet resistance.
In other words, it is the flaws in the evomaniacs' arguments that have caused the creationists' resistance to the theory of evolution as a whole.
You mean, like Newton changing the orbits of planets and observing the result. Oh, wait, he didn't do that. I guess that means he wasn't a real scientist.
And then there's Einstein. Here's a list of the science experiments Einstein ran in his research career.
(begin list)
(end list)
Sorry, Einstein, according to our FR peanut gallery, you don't qualify as a real scientist either.
I've never seen such strong opinions with so little to back them up.