|
It seems there's one fundamental mistake people seem to be making. When one finds incompleteness and inaccuracy in a scientific theory, it is not "disproven" and it is not abandoned. An example previously discussed here is the theory of relativity. It did not replace Newton's theory of physics; rather, it expanded on that theory to allow physics to explain new phenomena that Newtonian mechanics couldn't explain properly. This does not mean that the "old" Newtonian model isn't correct, it's just limited to specific cases (like when you're not moving at the speed of light). Relativity explains Newtonian physics and more. That's what makes it a better model than the Newtonian one.
In the same way, Darwinian evolution theory has been expanded and elaborated upon by loads of scientists. Some of his assumptions have been disproven, some have been found too simplistic, etc. And yet people seem to believe that the theory of evolution that is used in biology today is exactly the same as the one presented in "The Origin of Species" 100+ years ago.
Creationists can attack Darwin all they want; anything they can say against his models of evolution has already been said by evolutionary biologists. As a scientist, you do not completely abandon a theory once some experiment has been found to "disprove" some element of it (no matter what Karl Popper may say!). Instead you work to develop the theory so that it better fits the reality around us - not the other way around, as Creationists seem to be trying to do.
|