It works for evolutionists. Until it’s so clear they got it wrong, and then they just re-write things to make it all better.
Meanwhile, God who is in heaven has his hand on the experiments, the discoveries, the “evidence”, and apparently has some sense of humor.
It works for evolutionists. Until it’s so clear they got it wrong, and then they just re-write things to make it all better.Sounds like good science to me.
You see, good science isn't dogma. When one theory is shown to be inadequate, it is replaced by another one. For example, people used to believe in abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation. They had experiments to prove their claim (see: Spallanzani)1. It took the genius of Louis Pasteur to devise an experiment to disprove spontaneous generation that was acceptable to the religious dogma as well as conforming to the scientific method, by no means an easy task.
What about for evolution? Before Darwin, there was Lamarck. He suggested that traits developed in one lifetime are passed on to future generations. The data, however, didn’t really support his theory all that much. So, it was dumped in favor of Darwin’s theory. Good science.
1 It’s interesting how the arguments for creationism and its descendant intelligent design are so similar to the arguments for spontaneous generation and geocentricism. The main point some creationists, for example the user RussP, like to make is that the "evidence” is there if you only open your eyes to see it. They see something, choose to either reject or refuse to discover natural explanations, and posit that God did it all. How is that any different from the arguments used for abiogenesis and geocentricism? Abiogenesis advocates in the past claimed that the particles teeming in spoiled broth were created from nothingness. After all, there wasn’t any “evidence”; they couldn’t see anything. So, it had to have been supernatural. Same for geocentricism. To them, our planet didn’t revolve around the sun. It revolved around us. We’re not moving, so it doesn’t make any “sense” for us to revolve around the sun. Science disproved both of these. They’re now relegated to the annals of history.
* At least the abiogenesis advocates could submit experiments that confirmed to the loose science standards of the times. Now that science is much stricter in its procedures, the "intelligent design"-ers can't tout a single peer-reviewed paper that supports their ideology.