An amazingly ironic statement to be made by a darwinist! You see it so clearly in others yet completely overlook it in yourself : ) Got a real chuckle on that one!
Glad you enjoyed it.
Just in case you are not familiar with the details, here is how science works.
Science works under the assumption that the natural/physical world can be observed and understood using natural/physical means. This means, anything that can be observed is some way is a suitable field for study.
Science then proceeds to gather data and attempt to explain that data. Hypotheses and theories are the ways in which science attempts to explain that data.
The database can change through better measurements or through finding new data. Theories can change based on the new data. Indeed, when any significant amount of scientific data contradicts a theory it must change to accommodate that data.
Science does not know where all of these theories will end up. The data drive the theories.
Your suggestion that science starts with a preordained conclusion is absolutely false. Science relies on a method, which is based on an assumption. This is absolutely not a conclusion. If that assumption is correct everything will work. If that assumption is not correct things will not work and that assumption will have to be changed.
So far the assumption under which science works has not been shown to be incorrect. All creationists have to do to show it is incorrect is to produce scientific evidence of the supernatural.
What creationists typically want is for science to change how it works in order to conform to their particular religious beliefs, which are based on revelation and other such sources, and which are held by faith rather than by evidence. In fact, they would be overjoyed if science confirmed their beliefs.
So much so that some of them... But that's where we came in.
Sir,
I think I’ve asked you this once before, but I don’t remember if you answered - why do you even try? Do you think you’re going to get the fundies to understand science, much less persuade them of their errors? Just curious.
You sound strangely like a "scientific fundamentalist." Again, you are correct in "perfect theory" but unfortunately the "theories" that you speak of are not presented as theories or are they open for dissent or are the measures of fact that supports them. They are presented as fact merely because the "scientific community" agrees that they are. That's how they are "sold." Is the "scientific community" an observable fact? You would think so considering how often it is presented as the "authority" on scientific fact we are supposed to swallow whole. Do you remember the chart we used to look at in grade school on man's evolution from the ape? How much of that chart was fact? Not too damn much of it, but boy it sure is a great selling tool! Science is NOT only science. The dissemination of science is filled with agenda and branding just like everything else the world is trying to sell us. Your puritanical view is naive.