[VadeRetro]

Yes, but science doesn't just change the reigning theory because it's 2003 and time for a new pageant, with last year's winner not eligible. The switches only happen when there's an opportunity to describe nature more accurately and understand it more fully.

The increasing accuracy with which science models nature should be everywhere apparent to people who have been alive for a few decades. Such performance is not possible if you're stuck with a story from 2000 years ago and can only see what "helps" it and must be utterly blind to its many failures.

[balrog666]

The increasing accuracy with which science models nature should be everywhere apparent to people who have been alive for a few decades. Such performance is not possible if you're stuck with a story from 2000 years ago and can only see what "helps" it and must be utterly blind to its many failures.

But their basic fallacy is the idea that overturning one "known fact" refutes all of science. It's just a total lack of understanding of what science "is".

[metacognative]

Can you give me an example of what you mean by this 'failure' of a 2000 year old nature story?
I can give you many of the 150 year old darwinite
myth of progressive development. For starters, except where there is a mind involved, no progressive development happens in the real world. There are no blind watchmakers