You've got it wrong - scientists can predict what we will learn in the future about the past. And that is remarkable.
The Piltdown Man hoax is a perfect example - evolutionists weren't fooled, because Piltdown Man didn't conform to what they were expecting to find. Because Piltdown Man didn't fit with the predictions, they suspected that it was a phony from the start.
That's why all the evolution hoaxes have been exposed by scientists. We can make predictions about what we'll find in the future.
Scientists approach all new data with skepticism, even if that data would appear to support existing theory. That dilligence is what separates science from faith, and evolutionists from creationists.
scientists can predict what we will learn in the future about the past.
Whoa, dude - sounds like thought conditioning.
Scientists approach all new data with skepticism, even if that data would appear to support existing theory. That dilligence is what separates science from faith, and evolutionists from creationists.
Methinks you have fallen for the: evolutionist scientist is good scientist / creationist scientist is bad scientist ruse.
Let's be real here - the evolutionist scientist can be a good or bad scientist AND the creationist scientist can be a good or bad scientist (just like his/her evolutionist brother/sister). The creationist scientist though would assuredly be a bad "evolutionary" scientist, but, I'm sure he/she can live with that.