You are misrepresenting what is happening here. They are learning the evidence, but openly reject the explanation of the evidence, ie the theory.
You are misunderstanding what is happening here. The theory
is the science. If all they are learning is a series of (to them) unconnected facts that have no theory holding them together, then they aren't learning science. Science isn't merely a series of facts. It's the theories that are built upon those facts, and the subsequent further investigations that follow from those theories. If science merely learned facts but didn't put them together into a cohesive framework we'd still be living in the dark ages.
This is perfectly legitimate
I have no idea what you mean by "legitimate" so I have no idea if it's legitimate, but it isn't science.
in that a theory isn't an absolute truth
No, it isn't. It's science.
it is a human construct to try and explain the data, and if someone feels it does not adequately do so he is free to think something else.
Why must you creo types keep trotting out the same strawmen over and over again? Nobody is saying you can't believe whatever you like. The only thing you can't do is teach it in schools and call it science, because it isn't.
Science certainly isn't about merely accepting whatever the prevailing paradigm is. But it is about challenging that paradigm with new facts or better explanations. Neither creationism nor intelligent design do either.
I think so too, but it was only to highlight how equivocating ''the theory of evolution'' and ''Science'' was poor logic.
It has nothing to do with logic. It has to do with the definition of science. The ToE fits it perfectly. (BTW, I'm pretty sure you mean "equating" rather than "equivocating" because "equivocating" makes absolutely no sense in that sentence.)
But, if we take me for example, I am not rejecting ''science'', I am not rejecting the scientific method, or even methodological naturalism. I am simply rejecting a scientific theory.
You are rejecting a scientific theory that is the best explanation for the evidence. (Actually, at this point in time, it's the only explanation.) This means one of two things: either you don't understand what the evidence is or you don't understand the scientific method.
In my own field, if I ever go on and actually become a physicist, it will be expected of me that I accept and reject certain theories.
But it will be expected of you that if you reject a theory that you provide either evidence undermining it or an alternative theory that better explains the evidence. Can you do that for the ToE?
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
™ Version 4.2
(1)
