Creationists have often made the claim that Evolution is not based upon facts or is not well-supported by the evidence.
I see several logical consequences to this situation, and I'd like our Creationists to address them. I'll list them below.
1) Scientists are liars and conspire to defraud the public
2) Scientists are incompetent at doing science
Most of the time, Creationists don't really put forth these statements in such bold language, but they are, indeed, the logical consequence to the claim that they make; that Evolution is not supported by the evidence or is false.
One thing I have never seen a Creationist address adequately is the fact that science, including Biology, as an endeavor is
cumulative and progressive. That is, all current scientific work is based upon past work.
If concept A, is discovered, replicated, and overall shown to be reliable, this will lead to concept B, which is based upon what we know about A.
If B also turns out to be reliable, this is also confirmation of concept A. And so on, and so on and so on...
If the Theory of Evolution is completely false and not supported by any evidence whatsoever (only "speculation and wishful thinking"), then how is it that the study of Biology has been able to progress at all in the last 150 years? The ToE is utterly foundational to all of the life sciences and much medical research, so if it was so very wrong, all predictions based upon it should fail. Research using it as a guide should never advance much, if at all.
How is it that predictions keep being made based upon the ToE that are subsequently borne out?
Are scientists really all liars and crooks, maintaining an elaborate deception on not only an unwitting public but also upon the entire scientific community?
Or, are Biologists simply so incredibly poor at doing science that they don't realize that all of their experiments have failed?
Is it Science?, please.
™ Version 4.2