Replies

I was homeschooled by a person with degrees in zoology and foreign politics. My undergrad and grad studies are all in engineering. I also spent time in public school. In public school they thought WHAT to think. At home I was taught HOW to think with logic, reason, and the scientific method.

That is exactly why I am disgusted reading scientific papers that question every assumption EXCEPT evolution. They jump through all kinds of hoops to make things fit the theory. They do the same thing with global warming studies in that they never question the basic premise that it happens and they never admit that we just don't know if it does or not. I don't bring up religion when arguing evolution because it does not matter. We don't need to teach kids one idea, we need to teach them how to think and how to reason for themselves. Liberals don't want that. Anyone that is confident in the truth or confident in wanting to know the truth should not feel threatened be that. I often avoid discussions like this because they are usually filled with the same old stuff. One side argues the bible and the other calls them names and pretends to understand all science.

All research must undergo a peer review process in which data must be validated.

Peer reviews are a joke and only catch the small mistakes. They rarely catch fundamental flaws. I know because a similar process is used in engineering. Ok, they are critically important and do catch a lot of issues. But to trust anything that passes that process is, to put it nicely, a bad idea. And don't even try to tell me that scientific peer reviews are more comprehensive than DO-178B because that is not economically possible. That and they don't have to be since things don't break and kill people is some scientists misinterpret data. My point is that the attitude comes after the data is published. And outside of school you can get papers published that say just about anything. Yeah yeah 'peer reviewed' sure, that does not make them fact. Yes the scientists know it is not fact and continue to question (Sometimes, yeah. Most of the time, we hope). But that is not to what the media and school teachers claim to the general population. To them anything in a science paper is in STONE from ON HIGH.

Well I have wasted to much time on this thread today but tell me one more thing. If Questioning your "powers that be" is the very essence of the scientific method then why is any questioning of evolution laughed at? If there is not an issue of arrogance then that should not be the case. Yeah, I know quoting scripture is not the way to argue science but there are and have been real questions raise on the issue and they are met by the establishment with mockery.

My point is that philosophic bias and political bias are NOT different than science bias. They are easier to get away with but science bias is not less real. A good example is the way for many years anti-grav research was not able to get any funding because it was considered fake and hokey by the powers that be (the ones with the research money). Only recently have serious institutions started to slowly look at the possibilities. Research costs money. Good research costs lots of money. Things that are disbelieved do not get funding. Questioning the 'powers that be' only lasts until the dollars run out and then scientists go do more accepted research to pay the bills.

Don't have time to answer all your questions right now (will later tonight) but I did want to address this:

If Questioning your "powers that be" is the very essence of the scientific method then why is any questioning of evolution laughed at? If there is not an issue of arrogance then that should not be the case. Yeah, I know quoting scripture is not the way to argue science but there are and have been real questions raise on the issue and they are met by the establishment with mockery

Evolutionary principals are challenged everyday. Perhaps not to the degree that evolution never happened, but the intricate details are always being challenged. From what you have written I assume you would like to see some challenges that evolution happened at all. A very valid point, however all evidence (fossil, molecular, etc.) point to change. We know that species are not static, therefore evolution is a proposed mechanism that explains the diversity of life we see. Now you can propose alternative mechanisms or theories to explain these changes but it is difficult to deny that species change over time.