Interesting that you should bring that up. I'm not much older than you and have had similar experiences on these threads. The problem comes in when someone is mocked or ridiculed for not believing a current scientific theory. Some years down the road, the theory has been proved wrong and a new one is in it's place. So what has happened is that those skeptics were mocked and ridiculed for not believing something that was not true in the first place. Something's wrong with that picture. Since scientists admit that theories are always open to revision and modification and some have been proved to be wrong before, perhaps they should exercise some restraint in engaging in that kind of behavior now. What would happen if some discovery 5 years from now blows the ToE as we know it out of the water? Apologies, perhaps? It hasn't happened before so I wouldn't hold my breath.
You raise a good question. The real problem is the advances in evolutionary theory are not coming from the cheap seats, but from the hard work of professionals. Changes in the theory are coming from hard-working fossil-diggers, bone experts, and statisticians, not from religious disbelievers.
Unfortunately, what we usually get here, on these threads, is people who don't and won't believe evolution for religious reasons, and will use any loose thread to attack not only evolution, but all of science--anything to get that godless, materialistic science to say something else! Look at the Wedge Strategy, which I believe is being carried out exactly to plan.
I have already posted, earlier on this thread, a comment from a thread this summer:
I, [name deleted here], am a Young Earth Creationist. I do not accept geology, or radiometric dating, or any part of modern science that might support an old Earth or evolution. Furthermore, I do not accept creation or evolution as proper objects of science in the strict sense. Lastly, ... I attribute all tendencies toward verbal putzitude to be a product of those who ignore, disavow, or otherwise impugn the authority of biblical texts.This is what scientists in general, and evolutionary scientists in particular are facing. People who dislike the results some sciences (evolutionary biology, geology, radiometric dating, biology, etc.) are attacking the whole of science in order to support and defend their religious beliefs. And, they are using the trial and error, step by step, careful method of science, in which new data can lead to new theories, as a weapon against science as a whole. The strength of science is perceived as a weakness: Look, you changed your theory! We can't believe anything you say, you'll just change it next year! It's all garbage!
What do you suggest we do? As a scientist in a field closely related to evolution, I am not willing to let religion have a veto power over scientific research. But in the minds of much of the general public, and almost all of the fundamentalists, the sciences I mentioned above are all guesswork, if not the devil's work. You seem a reasonable sort, again, what do you suggest we do?
I don't have a problem with science changing its theories as new evidence comes in. I would expect that. I realize that it needs to be open to revision and you're correct about its greatest strength being perceived as its greatest weakness. I recently dealt with the old info issue when I made some comment on the fact (as I was taught it) that most mutations are harmful. I was informed that that was misinformation circulated by the creationists when in reality, that is what I was taught in high school biology. That is just a minor example of what I was getting at. I didn't say that because I was lying or pushing a creationist agenda; I just hadn't realized that that teaching had changed. Not everything that everyone posts here that is wrong is a deliberate attempt to misguide or deceive.
What bothers me some is that people who are skeptical of a current theory and express that skepticism, are sometimes, maybe often, ridiculed because of it. Then later the theory is modified or thrown out altogether and it turns out that those skeptics were correct in their skepticism in the first place.
But in the minds of much of the general public, and almost all of the fundamentalists, the sciences I mentioned above are all guesswork, if not the devil's work. You seem a reasonable sort, again, what do you suggest we do?
Someone else raised a similar issue on another thread about the problem of what happens with the data once it's published. When a special interest group takes a little data and runs with it, proclaiming it as fact to support their agenda (global warming comes to mind here), the general public has little way of knowing whether or not the info is being misused. It casts a bad reflection on science as a whole and not for any good reason.
But in the minds of much of the general public, and almost all of the fundamentalists, the sciences I mentioned above are all guesswork, if not the devil's work.I can't argue with that statement, although I'm not sure that that is true of most fundamentalists or not. The Christian circles that I've run in certainly don't fit that profile. (They include several public university science professors with at least one PhD in their field.) My guess is that in the field you're in, you are more likely to run into the fringe types than the general public types. I know an awful lot of Christians who are not interested in throwing out all of science just because they disagree with the ToE.
I would almost agree with the comment about religion having veto power over scientific research but what comes to mind is the whole stem cell debate and what science could end up like if it weren't for some moral constraints. But that's another issue.
Let me qualify this by saying that I recognise that this doesn't apply to everyone. I could get flamed from both sides on this. This is just a "IMO" type statement.I think what many people want in this debate is not that creation be taught *AS* science, (which it's not and can't be) but the issue be addressed in science classes. I don't perceive the basic idea of ID as anti-science but it does answer many questions that evolution can't. When people suggest that it be taught in a religion class it comes across as a brush off because everyone knows that religion is not going to be taught in school. I would also hazard a guess that most high school students are pretty aware of the debate and have formed their own opinions about it so it's not like addressing the issue would corrupt someone's science career.
I don't have a clue what to do about people's perception that science is all guesswork. Unfortunately, that is supported by the changing of theories and the occasional "Oops, look what we just discovered" in a serendipitous situation. I don't think there's much fighting that.
BTW, for all us OEC, the Flood could have happened much further back than 4,000 years or so. Perhaps you need to look further back.