It's always been one of the many weird aspects of that whole anti-evolution sentiment: the claim that since we don't know every mechanism of it yet, the whole thing must be wrong.
Of course, I think that stems from the insistence on infallibility--if one thing is wrong in something you insist is infallible, then you have to throw the whole thing out. But with science, finding a flaw means that you can discard it and replace it. Science is a fine-tuning process, rather than the etched-in-stone ideals of religion.
That also is part of the misinterpretation of the whole concept of "theory"--a theory has to be falsifiable. This is not a weakness; it is a strength, because if you test it and it proves true each time, you've got a good theory; if it's false, you change the theory to strengthen it.
I really do wish we had more politicians who approached things with a scientific attitude: "Well, that didn't work! I guess I'd better try something else!" Wouldn't it be loverly ...
no subject
Of course, I think that stems from the insistence on infallibility--if one thing is wrong in something you insist is infallible, then you have to throw the whole thing out. But with science, finding a flaw means that you can discard it and replace it. Science is a fine-tuning process, rather than the etched-in-stone ideals of religion.
That also is part of the misinterpretation of the whole concept of "theory"--a theory has to be falsifiable. This is not a weakness; it is a strength, because if you test it and it proves true each time, you've got a good theory; if it's false, you change the theory to strengthen it.
I really do wish we had more politicians who approached things with a scientific attitude: "Well, that didn't work! I guess I'd better try something else!" Wouldn't it be loverly ...
(Sorry; reposted for bad HTML)