Are Evolutionary Scientists in Lockstep?
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
A while ago, I asked if creationary scientists need to be in lockstep, unified in all areas of science that they present. The answer is clearly no, since many fields of science, both historical and operational, change when new data is found and new hypotheses are presented. Biblical creationists are, however, generally unified on what the Bible teaches — that is not changing, but the models are fair game.
What about their secular counterparts? If you cognate on it a while, you'll see that such uniformity is not possible for the same reasons: science changes with data and new hypotheses. Unfortunately, Darwinistas will try to lasso biblical creationists with false assertions to the contrary, and say that we are opposing "science". (On a side note, science does not think, speak, or have opinions. Scientists who are doing science stuff are the ones who do those things.) When creationists are called "science deniers" because we disagree about secular views of historical science, it's interesting that the name-callers do not do the same thing to other secularists.
One example is the Big Bang. It was resisted at first in favor of the "steady state" concept, which also had no scientific evidence, and was promoted by atheist astronomer Fred Hoyle. Although predominant, there are scientists who reject the Big Bang, and some propose the fact-free "string theory" for the universe.
Another area of dispute among scientists, but its champions present as settled science, is that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Scientists are not in agreement on that, and every once in a while, "evidence" for bird-to-dinosaur evolution is challenged by secular scientists.
There are also disputes about our alleged ancestors in the evolutionary tree. Homo floresiensis, the little "hobbit" people, have several disputes surrounding them. Likewise, Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy", has had a great deal of controversy, though it was most likely just another extinct ape.
The same kind of thing goes for global warming (or "climate change"). I'll let you do your own research on the disputes regarding that, but here is one piece for your consideration.
If you can get away from the sites from Darwin's cheerleaders, you can do some research and see that many of the things presented as if there were no sane or scientific dissenters really do have dissenters. Scientists, whether evolutionary or creationary, are not in lockstep. Which is a good thing for both science and critical thinking.
Various aspects of historical science, especially related to common-ancestor evolution, are presented by evolutionary proponents as if only idiots dare disagree on various subjects. The fact is, scientists have disagreements that Darwin's cheerleaders to not discuss, or may not even be willing to know.
A while ago, I asked if creationary scientists need to be in lockstep, unified in all areas of science that they present. The answer is clearly no, since many fields of science, both historical and operational, change when new data is found and new hypotheses are presented. Biblical creationists are, however, generally unified on what the Bible teaches — that is not changing, but the models are fair game.
What about their secular counterparts? If you cognate on it a while, you'll see that such uniformity is not possible for the same reasons: science changes with data and new hypotheses. Unfortunately, Darwinistas will try to lasso biblical creationists with false assertions to the contrary, and say that we are opposing "science". (On a side note, science does not think, speak, or have opinions. Scientists who are doing science stuff are the ones who do those things.) When creationists are called "science deniers" because we disagree about secular views of historical science, it's interesting that the name-callers do not do the same thing to other secularists.
 |
| Image credit: modified from Pixabay / Greyerbaby |
Another area of dispute among scientists, but its champions present as settled science, is that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Scientists are not in agreement on that, and every once in a while, "evidence" for bird-to-dinosaur evolution is challenged by secular scientists.
There are also disputes about our alleged ancestors in the evolutionary tree. Homo floresiensis, the little "hobbit" people, have several disputes surrounding them. Likewise, Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy", has had a great deal of controversy, though it was most likely just another extinct ape.
The same kind of thing goes for global warming (or "climate change"). I'll let you do your own research on the disputes regarding that, but here is one piece for your consideration.
If you can get away from the sites from Darwin's cheerleaders, you can do some research and see that many of the things presented as if there were no sane or scientific dissenters really do have dissenters. Scientists, whether evolutionary or creationary, are not in lockstep. Which is a good thing for both science and critical thinking.
Various aspects of historical science, especially related to common-ancestor evolution, are presented by evolutionary proponents as if only idiots dare disagree on various subjects. The fact is, scientists have disagreements that Darwin's cheerleaders to not discuss, or may not even be willing to know.