The stance of evos is to make the claim, as you do, and then demand somehow others disprove it.
Isn't that how science works? Make a claim (state your hypothesis), examine the evidence, does any of the evidence contradict the claim? If not your hypothesis is tentatively true. Does your hypothesis have the power to make predictions? If so your hypothesis is tentatively true and has utility. Given that it is tentatively true and has utility, it will be used.
To maintain integrity, and to assure others that the hypothesis and its conclusions are valid science, ways in which the hypothesis (or certain conclusions drawn from the hypothesis) could be falsified are openly discussed.
To paraphrase you:
quote:
The stance of science is to make the claim, and then challenge others to disprove it.
A crude wording, but effective enough, I feel.
...it leads to evos accepting on faith all sorts of myths, hoaxes, overstatements, etc[.]
This happens to pretty much all disciplines, evolution, creationism, ID, nuclear physics, history, religion, everything really. The good thing about science is its self-correcting mechanisms, the bad thing is that those mechanisms are operated by imperfect humans.
Once again, to paraphrase:
quote:
People accept on faith all sorts of myths, hoaxes, overstatements, etc.
A system needs to be developed that can help minimize this inherent flaw of humanity. One possible system is to define what is true and to dogmatically stick to it, anyone that disagrees is simply wrong. This would be a system similar to religion, but the system has its weaknesses, and what is defined as true tends to drift and change due to the aforementioned failings of mankind.
Another system would be accepting that what we think of as true one day could be shown to be false the next. As such all truths are tentatively concluded, and open to falsification. Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce to you...Science!
™ Version 4.2
