Donate -or- Patronize our Creation Science Store

Scientific findings are always changing (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search
Response Article
This article (Scientific findings are always changing (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.

Claim CA250:

Scientific theories are always changing. You cannot trust what scientists say, since it may be different tomorrow.

Source: Matthews, Michael. 2003. A century of fraud.

CreationWiki response:

There is a difference between a theory (already endangered by gaps in the evidence) undergoing drastic revision, and a scientific theory making productive additions.

(Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

Science investigates difficult questions about unknown fields, and scientists are human, so it is inevitable that scientific findings will not be perfect.

This is essentially the sum of the creationist claim Talk.Origins was attempting to refute! The fact remains that the same evolution proclaimed today would not be recognized by its founders, and scientists generations from now will look back and frown on contemporary conceptions of evolution. Scientists cannot be dogmatically confident about evolution because it makes so many assumptions that cannot be confirmed. Yet these same evolutionists continue to assert that evolution is an airtight theory, and the best explanation for observed phenomena.

Claiming that neither science nor scientists are perfect is a convenient and ineffective excuse to gloss over a history of revision, error and fraud.

However, science works by investigating more and more, which means results get checked and rechecked with further findings. The reason some findings change is because they get corrected. This process of correction helps make science one of the most successful areas of human endeavor. The people who cannot be trusted are those who are always right.

In other words, Talk.Origins claims it's actually better to be wrong sometimes. However, if they concede that evolution can be wrong (and in fact, it's good to be mistaken in some things) then why do they dismiss or refuse to acknowledge significant objections raised by creationists? These serious scientific challenges are ignored until evolutionists believe a solution is found. Only then (except in rare cases of hard honesty) will they admit the now-solved problem presented a challenge.

There is a drastic difference between true progress (making additions to the Periodic Table of Elements to account for new finds, for example) and revising theories of human descent by thousands of years.[1]

As more evidence accumulates, scientific findings become more and more certain. Theories that have withstood several decades of study may undergo more refinement of details, but it is almost inconceivable that they would be overturned completely.

Of course the belief will not be overturned completely, because it is a belief. Evolution will change as often as necessary to fit the data.

Related References

See Also

Personal tools