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”.
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?
1. No scientific theory can be proved. Not one!
2. In science, the highest level you can reach is that of a theory. You and other creationists seek to degrade the theory of evolution by referring to it as a theory, as if there were some higher level it could reach. There is not.
3. Replication is not necessary in science. It is nice to have in those fields where it is possible, but the fields that can't do replication make do with what they have. Predictions are one way they do so. This works as follows: If this aspect of the theory is correct, we should see this fossil in that stratum in that location. They then go and look. If the fossil is found, the theory is supported.
4. The implications of a theory have no bearing on the accuracy of a theory. That fundamentalists see the theory of evolution as opposing their religious viewpoints has nothing to do with either science in general or the theory of evolution in particular. There are many other religious believers who have no problem with the theory of evolution or its implications; Catholics, for example. Science simply can't be held hostage to religious beliefs. We settled that with the Enlightenment.
5. The implications of the theory of evolution are not evil. That is silly. You, and those who believe as you do, simply disagree with them for religious reasons. That man descended from apes is pretty much an established fact, and facts are neither good nor evil. They just are.
As an aside, I like the format you are trying here. I haven't even been called a Nazi yet (but the day is still young).