The issue is whether the science is right when you have people that think illogically.
When one assert that people think illogically, this usually means that one disagrees with them. Their logic might actually be impeccable. We often say "logical" and "illogical" when no actual question of logic is at issue.
There is a lot of great scientific work such as genetics, but then you have people asserting a context as factual when it is not.
There is often disagreement over what is a fact. And context is relevant here, too. It's a fact that the sun rose in the east this morning, but it is also a fact that the sun isn't actually rising and the appearance of rising is due to the rotation of the earth.
Asserting something as "fact" is just the way we sometimes communicate. Christians assert the existance of God as fact, whereas agnostics would call that a speculative hypothesis and atheists would assert that it is false.
There is a reason so many myths such as the Biogenetic law were perpetuated for so long.
As has often been explained to you, science is tentative.
They are advancing a sort of pseudo-faith that a narrowly defined and limited approach to truth that automatically excludes many thing a priori is a reasonable approach to truth.
You are presuming that there is some sort of absolute
truth. There isn't. Our ideas on truth are themselves but part of a tentative theory, and that theory is continually evolving.
I hate to resort to the proverbial NAZI example, but Germany was the most scientifically advanced nation on earth, but at the same time, they adopted prejudicial thinking in terms of race, and so despite their fantastic scientific advances, they also held to absolutely kookiness as well due to their prejudicial thinking.
That's confused thinking. The scientists are/were a small portion of the society. It is rare that politicians are scientists. The existence of a cadre of scientists does not make the politicians any more rational.
Imo, though not as extreme, that's what we see within the evo-community, the ability on the one hand to be perfectly bright and rational in some areas of science, but to be completely illogical and irrational when it comes to questions dealing with the veracity of ToE.
We know that is how you see it. But you see it from a creationist viewpoint.
If it were irrational and illogical, a case of group think, one might expect agreement within biology and geology but disagreement elsewhere. The fact is, there is wide support for ToE from scientists who are neither biologists nor geologists.
As to "the veracity of ToE", may I remind you that scientific theories are neither true nor false. They are accepted (or rejected). There is no certain standard of truth whereby we can judge the veracity of theories. Those who accept a theory will generally speak of it as true. But that does not alter the tentative nature of scientific theories.
™ Version 4.2
