I always thought that good science came out of doubting old scientific theory and finding more/better ways to understand the world with new scientific theory. I always thought this was the way science “progressed.” But in this day and age, if you dare merely to question the science (global warming, evolution) then you’re a “buffoon” worthy of ridicule.
Back before conservatives decided in the name of expediency to go all in for this "let the children decide" hogwash, high school was where the basics were drilled in. With a thorough understanding of the basics, you then went on in college and graduate school to find "more/better ways to understand the world with new scientific theory." Over time, that's proved a pretty effective way of making scientific "progress."
But I guess all that rote "learning" stuff is old hat these days. The "new age" way is to let ignorance "organically flower" into insight. Can't you just feeeel the freedom?
But you are missing the point. When you question a scientific theory you need to bring scientific evidence, not religious belief, as creation "science" does.
These "weaknesses" that were discussed, but not included, consist of hundreds of creationists' claims that have long since been refuted by scientific evidence. Why should they continue to be hashed out?
In grad school there was a seminar course titled something like "Problems in Evolution." I took it three times, as the subject matter changed to match current scientific findings and debates. Not a one of the standard creationist talking points was ever discussed, as they are simply "what if" stories with no scientific evidence to support them. They've long since been settled by science, and science has moved on. Creationists haven't kept up.
A good example--upthread is a comment disparaging evolutionary science for the lack of a "missing link." That's a phoney issue, and reflects a belief in creation "science" rather than a knowledge of science. See the chart below--which is the "missing link?"
More precisely, you're an anti-science theocrat, ready to sacrifice civilization and put us back in the dark ages.
And any arguments against it are purely religious apologetics, not *real science*.
Science may not be done by consensus but by gosh, you'd better not question their latest pronouncements. It'll cost you your career.