[jim35]

"But there is no genuine scientific rebuttal yet found to evolution. If there were, it would be big news, and big science would study it."


Unless you consider that it has become so ingrained in the society of scientists, that it is too sacred a cow to be questioned, and that any who do are punished and ridiculed, and see their careers go down the drain. This is one of the oldest traditions in science, going way back.

[dubyagee]

and that any who do are punished and ridiculed, and see their careers go down the drain.

That is true. Sad, but true.

[jejones]

Unless you consider that it has become so ingrained in the society of scientists, that it is too sacred a cow to be questioned, and that any who do are punished and ridiculed, and see their careers go down the drain. This is one of the oldest traditions in science, going way back.

It's also a tradition that theories manage to survive such ridicule--Berzelius was a great chemist who later on in life impeded progress in the field, but chemistry progressed despite him; continental drift was initially not accepted. In mathematics, Gauss blew off non-Euclidean geometry and Galois's field theory was ignored at first. For that matter, evolution was opposed by some scientists at first--remember Lord Kelvin's back of the envelope calculation of how long the sun could provide heat? (Too bad nuclear fission and fusion weren't known about at the time.)