Do Creationists Understand How Science Works? Apparently Not! (Part II)

Yet another example of trying to take one of the strengths of Science and claiming that it as a Negative.  As I've said many times, and as evidenced by scientific advances time and time again, science doesn't stand still.  As we learn more and more, we adjust the scientific theories, the explanations of what we are learning, in order to better explain the world around us.  Think of any field and think about the changes from 100 years ago, or 50, or 25, hell even just 5 years ago.  We learn, we adjust.  Nothing is carved in stone!  That's one of the main strengths of science and scientific methodology.

But of course any change, small or large, is portrayed by the Discovery Institute as proof that science doesn't work. In this post "Another Day, Another “Rewrite” on Human Origins", you can see it in the title, without bothering the read the article itself.  Here's the closing paragraph:

"The more that experts on human evolution know about our origins, the less they seem to actually understand. Given evolutionary presuppositions, the direction of research and learning is not from lesser to greater clarity, but just the opposite. The result is, as Scientific American more candidly puts it, a “mess” (“Ancient Fossils from Morocco Mess Up Modern Human Origins”). If that is the case, maybe the problem is with the presuppositions."

First off, I have to ask  . . . which is it?  Is the scientific community hidebound, parochial, and too steeped in their own righteousness to examine mew ideas . . . or, as the DI claims here, so open to new ideas that we really don't know anything?

Think about it, how many times has the DI whined and complained because 'Big Science' doesn't let anyone play because they have it all sewn up?  That was one of the messages from that abortion "Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed!", it's also been a constant theme from the DI as they portray themselves as champions of science because they are willing to consider all ideas, including their religious ones.  Yet as real science learns more and more, we change our explanations pretty often.  

So which is it?  Are we too locked into 'presuppositions' or too close-minded because no one outside of very specific religious circles gives Intelligent Design serious consideration.  You sure can't tell from reading posts, books, and articles from the DI.  

The DI also seems to have a problem with English.  Here is the definition of 'presupposition' :

"a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action." (Google: Presupposition)

Is a scientific theory a 'Presupposition'?  That's where the typical word games of the DI try and take us.  Theories are explanations based on the current state of our understanding AND are subject to change.  There is no 'tacit assumption', if that were so they would never change.  But . . . when you look at the explanations offered by religion, what changes there?  Don't Creationists 'presuppose' answers before even examining the question?  Isn't that exactly what the DI is guilty of, presupposing an intelligent cause for no other reason than they believe it to be so.  They offer no evidence other than their presupposition.

So, science is bad because it changes, yet religion is good because it doesn't change . . . yet religious answers to scientific questions are worthless whereas scientific answers actually work.  So there you have it folks, if you don't want to change, join a religion.  But when you hit the switch for your TV things might not work well because the high priests at the power plants are busy praying instead of learning how to run the place.