It's true that not every theory withstands the test of time and goes on to be considered a fact by nearly all of the scientific community, but evolution is one that has.
I will not argue the fact that all evidence so far has pointed to evolution as fact. However , I wonder why evolutionists are unwilling to admit they don't have all the answers and they could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time science made a mistake. After all we are only human.
Did you read the article? Researchers do admit they don't have all the answers; however, they are reluctant to do it in public because your average creationist charlatan (the ones who make money off the gullible) will jump on the statement and say, "see, they can't answer it, therefore Goddidit."
Thank you.
However , I wonder why evolutionists are unwilling to admit they don't have all the answers and they could be wrong.
When have you *ever* seen an evolutionist actually be "unwilling" to admit that?
Now try to get an anti-evolutionist creationist to admit the same thing... *They're* the ones claiming to have Absolute Truth(tm).
It wouldn't be the first time science made a mistake. After all we are only human.
Of course. But on the other hand, it's perverse the way that some people cling to that thin reed as an excuse to deny what the vast amounts of evidence indicates.
"It *could* be wrong" is an intellectually dishonest reason for refusing to believe something that is extremely well supported by the facts. Liberals do that a lot, it depresses me to see a lot of conservatives do it on this issue. Wishful thinking is no substitute for honestly following the evidence where it leads.
This is far, far from the truth. Science is always our best guess, and scientists all have a healthy respect for margins of error. To suggest that people working in evolutionary science and molecular biology are unwilling to admit they "don't hate all the answers" is totally wrong. The "dominant paradigm" is always are best guess. With modern science, our best guesses are very, very good. We don't know for sure that Einstein's theories are true, but they hold up. There's more physical evidence for biological evolution (both fossil evidence and comparitive genomics) than there is for Einstein's theories. In fact, it wasn't believed that Einstein's theory of special relativity (time dilation) even had any practical application at all until the invention of the global positioning satellite network. Though the dominant paradigms are our best scientific guesses, they are well supported by evidence and the hard work of many in the field. This is not to say that some day, a better theory may come along to replace our current models. Of course, this may happen, just as Einstein's theories supplanted Newton's theories for gravitational attraction. Scientists have a healthy respect for what they don't know, but those things scientists do know are on solid foundation. That's why comments like "evolution is just a theory" and "you don't really know how this happened" are met with frustration. Extraodinary claims require extraordinary proof. If someone claims that evolution is wrong, then they need to do more than base that argument on "you're just not sure about it."
I also think part of the problem is that creationists don't understand that evolution doesn't even attempt to provide all the answers. Evolution deals only with a limited scope, namely the development of different varieties of organisms. I can't count the number of times that creationists argue that evolution can't be true because "life can't arise from nonliving matter" or that they deride evolutionists for believing that "there was nothing and then that nothing exploded." Evolution doesn't attempt to answer the questions of the origin of the universe or even the origin of life. Even within its scope, however, scientists are more than willing to admit that they might be wrong. However, it seems that it is the details that are debatable currently. It seems unlikely that the overall idea of genetic variability leading to all the species of life will be found to be wrong. Creationists even seize upon the debate over the details, however, in a desparate attempt to show that evolution is in trouble.