Hardly "nothing". Evolution is a continuing, proven process where basically, but not exclusively, simple organisms become over the course of time more specialized or complex.
Hardly a proven process. Even Darwin himself had doubts about the theory he created (and it's still just that - a theory).
See my post above: Doubt and disproof is the major engine of science. Anyone without doubt about what they're working on isn't properly doing their job as a scientist.
[quote=Patrocles]
Interviewees, including the scientist Richard Sternberg, claim that questioning Darwinism led to their expulsion from the scientific fold...
So will questioning gravity, or DNA, or a number of other theories. There's nothing strange about that.
I can't wait to watch this for the entertainment value though. And yes, Michael Moore worship and leftist indoctrination in the social sciences sucks too.
People don't get usually expelled from the scientific fold.
Its a more complicated process:
1. You don't get paid if your employer doesn't think you're doing worthwhile work
2. You don't usually get research grants for work that the people giving the grant thinks is a waste of time (eg. attempting to prove apples are intelligent and can hear people, attempting to prove the earth is flat)
3. Being out of date (not reading up on new discoveries etc.) in your discipline is normally a bad idea for your career
4. Repeatedly refusing to accept that an idea has been disproved can lead people to view you as very stubborn at best and a bit of a nutcake at worst
5. Using you're position to push an agenda (especially in areas you aren't knowledgeable in - academic freedom protects you in your own field, not other peoples') can get you in trouble
6. Lying about other scientists actions (or other peoples actions) can get you fired (or at least make them dislike you)
So people can lose their jobs (for mundane reasons), not be promoted, not be published, not be taken seriously, become socially marginalised etc.
There needs to be levels of theory to be clear for less intelligent common folk. Science enjoys hiding behind the word theory especially with some of their more absurd guesses. Theory Level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4... etc.. The higher the level the more absurd it becomes. Humans evolving from apelike creatures would be quite high on the absurdity level, whereas the theory about gravity may be around a level 2.
The point being a theory, is still a guess, regardless how great it may sound or equate on paper. And theories that are debunked would still be theories, just a higher level of theory.
Well, there are "posits/hypothesis", "theories" and "laws" - so thats three levels for you:
- A hypothesis, is indeed, an educated guess (ie. an explanation based on observations)
- A
scientific theory has the ability to (at least partially) predict results before they are obtained and doesn't have internal contradictions or contradictions with other results
- A
scientific law is a set of observations that most (99%) of people in the relevant part of the natural sciences accept as being likely to be correct
The parts of evolutionary theory that are now being debated in the press are going to be upgraded to a "scientific law" in the biology community in the next few years. There are a number of other areas of the theory and other relevant theories which need another century or two of work though (no one talks about these for some reason).
Anyway, you can see how scientists use the word theory, and if you really consider it, how incredibly hard it is for a theory to meet the criteria put on it.
About gravity:
Gravity is really high on the absurdity level. Here you have a "scientific law" that lacks a "scientific theory". How does gravity work? Where does it come from?
Essential answer to date: It's a magical force with no explanation.
If you compare this to the idea that two almost identical species (eg. humans and chimps) (genetically and structurally) are actually relatives (already a reasonable idea) and when:
- you back up this idea with observations that show natural selection does work (YECs accept this - just not speciation events).
- you have documented at least one mechanism which would cause speciation (splitting of a chromosome).
- you demonstrate the cellular mechanic & genetic feasibility of this proposed mechanism
...then it looks much less absurd than Gravity does...