I'm not sure why so many scientists condone ToE.
As per the OP, I don't think scientists DO "condone" the ToE. It is
accepted because it is the best model to date that is fully consistent with the evidence obtained from observation and experimentation. I personally find it a compelling collection of inter-twined theories and hypotheses because in all my years of wandering the forests of the neotropics, I have never encountered a single phenomenon, organism or observation that
isn't wholly consistent with the theory. IOW, reality appears to be rather well explained by the theory - the hallmark of a good scientific model. On the other hand, if someone came up with a better explanation that was also fully consistent with the evidence, I would drop the ToE like a hot rock. The fact that no one - in spite of testing it to death over the last 150 years or so - has been able to come up with a better model indicates that it is pretty robust.
My position is that ToE does not pass the scientific or logic test when its positions are examined objectively and without fear of ridicule - a big problem for a fair go to scientists, and which will, IMHO, become more pronounced and louder. I don't believe a biologist has the freedom to voice an anti view of ToE today - its today's equivalence of the old heresy charge.
I'm afraid your position here isn't supported by the facts. One of my favorite examples is Lynn Margulis. She has developed a completely novel model - serial endosymbiosis - to explain the diversity of life we see. This hypothesis in its most extreme form relegates NS - a foundational explanation for changes in populations over time - to the role of bit player, essentially over-turning a goodly chunk of the current ToE. Her work has generated quite a bit of controversy - not because she is overturning the ToE, but rather because at the unicellular level, SET has been shown to be entirely correct. It's only at the macro scale where there is sometimes quite vociferous disagreement. Yet she continues to publish freely (and prolifically). Must be something wrong with your contention, n'est-ce pas?
Of coz, the fear of redicule is very real in any arguement against ToE, and one can imagine the plight of disagreeing scientists here. But this syndrome is not condusive to good debate and further advancements. We will never know, if we are not allowed to know.
Not at all. Fear of ridicule is only the concern of those who make spurious, unsupported allegations or who attempt
ad hoc explanations without considering all the evidence. Anyone is free to attempt an overthrow of any part of the ToE. Just make sure that the attempt is legitimate.
I'd appreciate a direct answer to the question posed in the OP:
Schraf, in the OP, writes:
2) Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have been advancing our understanding Biology over the last 150 years at the most astonishing pace have all just been deluded? Since several of the main occupations of scientists are critically examining theory and trying to falsify hypotheses, are you also accusing all of those Biologists of being so poor at doing science that they have, to a person, missed the fact that the overarching, foundational theory that underpins all Biology is completely false?
After all, if all the observations we have made and all the evidence we have uncovered to date are consistent with the ToE, why would you think we have so completely missed the boat? (abe: better said, the ToE is consistent with all the observations and evidence).
Edited by Quetzal, : poor word choice
Edited by Quetzal, : bloody hell, it's phenomenon singular, not phenomena
™ Version 4.2
