I know of no scientist who derives his/her identity or self-worth from a theory. If you have an example of such a scientist, could you post it here? If you have any credible evidence that scientists, in general, base their sense of self-worth or identity in scientific theories, could you present it, please?
There is no issue of "refusing to let Darwin's theory be wrong" here. The theory of evolution, as Darwin first formulated it, and as it has been refined in the ~170 years since, works very well as a framework for biological investigation. If it didn't, we (scientists) would have ditched it... just like we abandon every theory that turns out to be incorrect.
Of course, the (doomed) efforts to discredit the theory of evolution really have nothing to do with science. I think they exist because, as a document of the beginning of Earth, life, and human life, the book of Genesis doesn't match much of what we know about the world at all, and it has too many internal inconsistencies. That upsets (some) people, for whom faith is somehow invalid if they must accept that Genesis is not a literal account. For me, it's no big deal. Faith is one thing, science another, and I'm fine with that.
Except for this one. This one continues to flourish in the minds of many, despite the fact that the scientific (evidentiary) underpinnings are simply not there.
The fact is I am losing patience with trying to engage with people who do not live in the same world that I do, who speak an entirely different language, who think like machines. (I am not a machine!) This being the case, real communication is impossible.
My sense is you and people like allmendream — myrmidons sent from DU to trouble the Christian citizens who frequent FreeRepublic — have blinders on their eyes and braces on their brains. It seems impossible that they should ever see the "big picture" of Reality in its fullness. Cognitively, they seem to function at the level of machines: They live in a world of two-value logic — a logic which can propound only two possible answers to any question: True or False. Yes or No. 1 or 0.
IMHO, at minimum, to truly get a grip on understanding the world around us, a two-value (Aristotelian, as in the Law of the Excluded Middle) logical system cannot suffice. We need at least a three-value logical system: True, False, Undecidable.
You wrote:
Of course, the (doomed) efforts to discredit the theory of evolution really have nothing to do with science. I think they exist because, as a document of the beginning of Earth, life, and human life, the book of Genesis doesn't match much of what we know about the world at all, and it has too many internal inconsistencies. That upsets (some) people, for whom faith is somehow invalid if they must accept that Genesis is not a literal account. For me, it's no big deal. Faith is one thing, science another, and I'm fine with that.But this only tells me that you do not understand what Genesis 1 and 2 actually say. Truth rarely reduces to the "literal." Understanding requires more than that.
To my understanding, Genesis 1 and 2 perfectly match up to my knowledge and direct experience of this world.
So, what do you and I have to talk about? We're not even standing on the same ground.
eDM wrote: ‘There is no issue of “refusing to let Darwin’s theory be wrong” here. The theory of evolution, as Darwin first formulated it, and as it has been refined in the ~170 years since, works very well as a framework for biological investigation. If it didn’t, we (scientists) would have ditched it... just like we abandon every theory that turns out to be incorrect.’
And yet after 170 years there’s still not one theory for evolution nor any solid refutations for the pesky facts you evolving ‘scientists’ normally ignore. At least there is a growing chorus of those refuting it [much the same as man-caused global warming].
Testimonies of Scientists Who Believe the Bible
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2761001/posts
Pesky facts like:
1) DNA that rewrites itself by millions and billions of lines for each new lifeform [omit for now how the first simple lifeform wrote hundreds of millions of DNA logic],
2) Symbiotic relationship of DNA and RNA needing to complement each other for each unique lifeform,
3) Chirality where only left-handed outcomes are selected,
4) Cambrian explosion,
5) Polystrate fossils,
6) Stasis in the fossil record where lifeforms come and go with zero evidence of any macro-type changes,
7) Over 100 natural clocks indicating much much less than millions let alone billions of years for natural history [see my links page for more],
8) Moon formation and age - esp. since all lifeforms are dependent on the motion of the moon,
9) Zero missing links - far short of the thousands upon thousands Darwin predicted or ‘my theory completely falls apart’,
10) The Law of Biogenesis or life from life.
I’ll stop here but the list of problematic data points is long and completely without any evolutionary explanations. Furthermore the list continues to grow so much so that mathematicians [pure logic not science] now have the highest group percentage of evo deniers.
Remember this please - Darwin saw a blob of tissue when he peered into the 1800’s microscopes yet today scientists can observe more complexity of interactions than what is found on any factory floor.