[Steve_Seattle]

If the history of science or intellectual history teaches you one thing, it is that the certitudes of one age are inevitably refined - and in some cases completely overthrown - by subsequent advances in science and philosophy. What annoys me about the anti-creationists is their smugness and their apparent belief that our present state of knowledge represents the final word on the great issues of science and philosophy. They see themselves as the great defenders of "science" and "reason", yet their mocking hostility to new ideas is the very thing that has always stood in the way of intellectual progress.

[DoctorMichael]

".....take your meds......"

".....mocking hostility....."

See my #21.

[PatrickHenry]

If the history of science or intellectual history teaches you one thing, it is that the certitudes of one age are inevitably refined - and in some cases completely overthrown - by subsequent advances in science and philosophy.

That happens, yes. But old ideas, such as creationism, astrology, phlogiston, etc., once overthrown, are never revived.

[crail]

If the history of science or intellectual history teaches you one thing, it is that the certitudes of one age are inevitably refined - and in some cases completely overthrown - by subsequent advances in science

But it's always by newer and better models, or by further data which requires a more advanced model. Never by courts or politics... generally it is courts and politics that stand in the way of the overthrow. Take for example the geocentric view. There was no experiment performed, scientists looked at historical data of planetary trajectories and two competing models. Geocentric and Heliocentric. The Heliocentric view was simple and elegant while the geocentric was complex and unsatisfying.

This is much the same as evolution. Evolution is simple and satisfying and explains the historical data. Creationism is complex in that it invokes processes that can never be understood to explain the data. Creationism may overthrow evolution for all I know, (but I doubt it), but not at this time. Not without much more evidence, and not via the courts. Scientific debate takes place in scientific literature.

[bondserv]

If the history of science or intellectual history teaches you one thing, it is that the certitudes of one age are inevitably refined - and in some cases completely overthrown - by subsequent advances in science and philosophy. What annoys me about the anti-creationists is their smugness and their apparent belief that our present state of knowledge represents the final word on the great issues of science and philosophy. They see themselves as the great defenders of "science" and "reason", yet their mocking hostility to new ideas is the very thing that has always stood in the way of intellectual progress.

I love clarity. Thank you!