warner writes:
How can we explain the naive insistence of evolutionists to believe something so extremely out of character for their scientific background?
One explanation could be that what evolutionists believe is actually not so "out of character" as you think it is. If you consider that the scientific method has given us knowledge about germs, gravity, and thermodynamics, which has resulted in things that actually work, like antibiotics, satellites, and refridgerators, don't you find it plausible that the same scientific method applied to biology would yield some trustworthy conclusions in that field too?
And how can we harmonize the normally broad-minded tolerance of the educated, with the narrow bigotry exhibited by many evolutionary scientists in trying to suppress opposing points of view?
We can't. And unless you present us with some verifyable, documented evidence that this is the case, we needn't even bother.
The obvious explanation would seem to be rooted in the desperation of such evolutionists to retain their reputation as the sole dispensers of dogmatic truth.
Again, unless you can provide some evidence that evolutionary scientists are so disposed, it isn't obvious at all, especially in light of the fact that scientists in general are actually overjoyed when someone overthrows the ruling paradigm to replace it with something better. That's how they know that they have come closer to the truth. If there's one thing scientists abhor, it's dogma.
No one objects to [the evolutionist community] assuming whatever they want to assume, but to assume happenings that go contrary to all scientific evidence and still call it science is being dishonest.
A documented example of this practice would be greatly appreciated.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
™ Version 4.2