I really LIKE that attitude! I think that real scientists think like that! Not to turn this into an anti-Evolution thread, but my peeve with them is that everytime some new evidence comes out that refutes any part of Evolutionary Theory, some scientists immediately announce:
"We know 3 things:
God does not exist.
Evolutionary Theory is definitely correct.
We can absorb this new evidence without fundamentally re-thinking anything."
Please give a specific example of this.
Something that 'refutes' evolutionary theory, and s scientist making a theological deduction from it.
Your credibility is on the line.
Perhaps you have a reference for this claim? Refereed journals only.
I can't recally any FR crevo thread, and especially no exchange in the scientific community, which has ever actually resulted in the kind of cartoon version response you describe. I submit that you're either misrepresenting those discussions, or misunderstanding them (probably the latter).
1. I have never seen anyone on these discussions be so bold (and silly) as to say that "we know God does not exist", because anyone with any sense knows that we can't know such a thing for sure (i.e., "know" in the "it has been proven" sense) -- nor can we know for sure that he *does*. What I *have* seen (and what you're probably mistaking for the above) is people provide counterarguments to the folks who claim to have some sort of unarguable evidence that God "must" exist. That predictably brings responses of "oh, yeah, what about *this*?", and "the thing you describe could also have occurred without a supreme being", etc.
2. I've never seen anyone say "Evolutionary Theory is definitely correct" in such an unqualified way. What you may have mistaken for that is when people say that a) the amount of evidence for the *occurrence* of evolution (i.e., common descent and so on) is so overwhelming that it is accepted as a fact in the scientific realm, and b) there is a hell of a lot of evidence indicating that much of evolutionary theory (i.e., *how* common descent occurred) is correct and can't just be hand-waved away without good reason (although there are always going to be refinements and new discoveries made as time goes by).
3. As for "We can absorb this new evidence without fundamentally re-thinking anything", there's nothing wrong with that. Most of the time new evidence can indeed be understood as an interesting consequence of current theory (actually, "most of the time" new evidence simply reconfirms existing theory without even raising a ripple). I'm sorry if this disappoints the creationists who run in with something and yell, "this completely disproves everything about evolution, by gum!", but usually it turns out the example was actually something fits evolutionary theory just fine -- the creationist had just misunderstood the theory in the first place and thus didn't know what would actually fit and what wouldn't.
But if you think you know of a thread that actually fits your description, feel free to link it.