The main reason science suffers is when it makes claims as fact that are not substantiated by the data (i.e. Global Warming). Science will only be science when it strives for complete openess and honesty - it must ‘evolve’ away from gov/political funding to regain it’s reputation.
For all those skeptics and creationists out there please take a look at this site below authored by a former believer in evolutionary dogma. Yes micro-evolution is a scientifically proven fact but a resounding NO to most all the other fanciful evolutionary claims.
From my links page:
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
Also I have another link regarding the alleged scientific ages for the Earth and Universe. A good scientific theory does not ignore/disgard any/all non-supporting data.
Well nothing in science is “proven”, and it is a well accepted theory because it EXPLAINS and PREDICTS facts (while creationism is useless towards explaining and predicting).
What mechanism stops “micro” evolution from becoming “macro” evolution?
The rate of mutation we see is more than sufficient to explain a 2% genetic and 6% genomic difference between humans and chimps over some six million years.
Obviously you think there WAS no six million years to be had, but is that your only defense, not enough time?
What mechanism would stop a 2% genetic and 6% genomic change from accumulating within a species over six million years?
Where is there ANY evidence for this “devolution” you speak of? Can you point to a single species, in the wild or in the lab, that went extinct due to accumulation of detrimental mutations? Is this what killed the dinosaurs?
Is the dog a “de-evolved” wolf? They certainly seem to be at no loss as far as the abilities they were selected for. They sure do not seem “de-evolved” to me.
Global warming is a special case. It has been latched onto by various political powers early on and promoted beyond its merits. Long ago it was already hard to get research grants unless it was sure a scientist was going to support AGW because the governments and NGOs had already seen the power they could have in advancing AGW.
Natural Selection was formed in a hostile environment, where in a highly religious age claims of heresy and blasphemy abounded. It's proponents risked ridicule and shame, and even legal repercussions. Yet it survived on the merits, eventually becoming the dominant scientific theory in the field.
Intelligent Design is trying to pull a Global Warming. The proponents have plans to leverage political bodies, the courts and apologetics to try to force the belief to prominence, starting with the faithful who would believe it only because of their religious beliefs, regardless of scientific merit. They do not intend for ID to become dominant on its merits, and they do not even promote it for scientific reasons.
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
I've read this before. The author should be embarrassed.