So called "scientists" like to profess to follow scientific methods (you know, gather ALL the facts and anlyze them)......
that is, until you get to the "mythology" (as they like to call anything they can't see or explain) of evolution -- then they simply IGNORE any facts or evidence that don't fit within into their preconceived conclusion.
science my eye.
Sr. Research Scientist
Engineering Specialist (engineering = applied science)
That is not a tenate of scientific reasoning, or much of any kind of useful reasoning outside of some obscure branches of pure formal math. Science proceeds on hazy inductive reasoning about a tiny sampling of ALL the possible evidence.
that is, until you get to the "mythology" (as they like to call anything they can't see or explain) of evolution -- then they simply IGNORE any facts or evidence that don't fit within into their preconceived conclusion.
All natural sciences suffer from the same problem--they have anomolies of observation they cannot satisfactorily explain, and it is not a matter of deception, it is a matter of the universe being quite a complex place. Evidence that does not "fit" the pre-conceived conclusions does not knock out any generally accepted natural science automatically, because of the tremendous weight of the confirming evidence. Science tries to weigh the totality of evidence, in a universe it recognizes as chock full of possible reasons, not readily apparent, why the dis-confirming evidence may be incompletely understood.
Science apologizes for not being the crystal palace of perfection the bible is, such that you can dis-embowel entire branches of it on the basis of a few anomolous results--something that occurs most anytime anyone does any actual experiimentation or field research, in any field of science--but, then, that's not science's job.