I think this is where the problem is. You are unwilling to acknowledge that the scientific method can be used in studies of the past, particularly with studies of evolution.
Nothing I can do to convince you of this, but there are tens of thousands of scientists from archaeologists, geologists, palynologists, sedimentologists, paleontologists and all the rest who are managing to follow the scientific method into the distant past. And there are astronomers who study the insides of stars and distant galaxies without repeating the exact conditions. The list goes on and on.
I suggest you do some research and perhaps rethink your ideas on the scientific method.
You are unwilling to acknowledge that the scientific method can be used in studies of the past, particularly with studies of evolution.
***I think the problem is that the past cannot be replicated, so the issue simply cannot be proven. The scientific method can be “used in studies of the past”, but by your own words in post #26, “The theory of evolution is a theory. The problem is not the theory itself, but the implications.” So why should such un-replicatable theories be taught to school children when the implications of the theory are evil?
there are tens of thousands of scientists ... managing to follow the scientific method into the distant past. I suggest you do some research and perhaps rethink your ideas on the scientific method.
***The problem isn’t “ideas on the scientific method”, it is the implications of a theory being taught to the captive audience of our children in guvmint schools. You say that “ Some folks object to the implications for religious reasons, and hence attack the theory using flawed science.” Where is the flawed science from xjcsa? I see none.
When you further build upon your flawed premise, saying “This, of course, annoys scientists who have a lot invested into the scientific method — because it works.” It brings to my mind the fact that christian parents are annoyed by schools teaching an ungodly philosophy when they have much invested in rearing Godly children, because it works.
So what do you expect them to do when the theory is attacked using flawed reasoning?
***Where’s the flawed reasoning? I think xjcsa’s reasoning is perfectly valid.
And when they use the same flawed reasoning to promote their religion to school boards in the guise of science?
***This is a further building upon your flawed premise, and it opens up several cans of worms that I choose not to open at this time. I will point out that there are atheists who “their religion to school boards in the guise of science”.