Really?
Yes, really.
So there is no interpretation or opinion involved when deciding where fossils belong in the evolutionary tree? It's non-subjective and completely agreed upon because these are data points which can be tested and re-tested, right?
You're missing the point. He's saying that in science, there are right answers and there are wrong answers. It's not like art or literature or politics, where subjectivity actually means something -- where opinions or preferences are legitimate reasons for disagreement. Science is based on objective reality -- there really *are* wrong answers, there really *are* answers that are objectively correct because they match reality, because they account for the facts, because they make the rocket actually reach the Moon instead of crash, etc.
Creationists often like to hand-wave away scientific conclusions as "that's just your opinion" or "well that's what you have faith in, mine's different" etc. No. There really *are* right and wrong answers in science, it's not just one man's opinion about what answer he "likes" or "prefers". Answers in science are not judged subjectively. They work or they don't. They match reality or they don't.
I'm sure we would all find articles stating that scientists disagree on any number of things. But what's the point?
"LOS ANGELES - Scientists say they have confirmed that a so-called 10th planet discovered last year is bigger than Pluto, but that likely won't quell the debate over what makes a planet."
They can't even agree on what a planet is. Apparently they can't agree on what a human is, either.
If it were only so cut and dry.
Michael Ruse, a professor of zoology and philosophy of science at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada testified at the McLean v. Arkansas trial in the early 1980s and indeed said that creation-science is not science at all. Invoking the fact/faith dichotomy, Ruse claimed that Darwinism was scientific because establishing its validity required no philosophical assumptions. All other views, he claimed, required such assumptions and were therefore unscientific. His testimony became the centerpiece of Judge Overton's ruling and became a judicial precedent.
What does Professor Ruse say now?
He has now come to view evolution as ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions.
In fact, he was a key speaker at a seminar convened to debunk "The New Creationism." Ruse had specifically been asked to refute Phillip Johnson's book, "Darwin on Trial." Instead, he endorsed one of its key points.
"I'm no less of an evolutionist now than I ever was," Ruse nevertheless explained that he had given fresh consideration to Johnson's thesis that Ruse himself, as "an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level just as much as . . . some creationist. . . . I must confess, in the ten years since I . . . appeared in the Creationism Trial in Arkansas . . . I've been coming to this kind of position myself."...
"Evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to naturalism," he said–that is, it is a philosophy, not just facts. He went on: "Evolution . . . akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically."
Ruse's colleagues responded with shocked silence and afterward one of them, Arthur Shapiro, wrote a commentary titled, "Did Michael Ruse Give Away the Store?"