Favorite Answer

I don't have a problem with it at all. Like most fields of science, it has some gaps - which is why scientists have jobs! However I keep seeing people say things like "it doesn't explain everything, therefore there must be something else...". So many people can't seem to cope with "I don't know" - they have to presume something untestable instead.

However, going by some answers here, there is a huge lack of understanding of how science works.

Typical is @Incommunicado:

<<A couple of centuries ago, men in white collars told us what to believe.

Now men in white labcoats tell us what to believe.

I don't realy see the difference, if you can't retain some objective scepticism about science then you've missed the point rather badly.>>

Well, the men in white collars were unaccountable. They were not challenged, or even challengeable. Their pronouncements were fixed, meant to represnt absolute truth.

Compare that with science, which is 100% challengeable. The whole underlying principle is permanent open-mindedness, knowing that whatever we think today could be overturned by new evidence tomorrow. The process is a rigorous way of putting any new idea through a meat-grinder (peer review), poring over it for the slightest flaw or inconsistency.

When published, any work is open to anyone to scrutinise, whether by doing the same experiment, carrying out the same observations, or even applying simulations to theoretical work. Everyone wants to find fault. Hence if work gets through this, it is accepted - for the moment. There is never a presumption that current findings are absolutely correct or permanent. Science embodies the very essence of objective scepticism.

Hence these two are poles apart.

The theory of evolution makes predictions, and evidence keeps validating these predictions, not refuting. Some things get changed significantly - for example, Darwin's 'Tree of Life', based on inheritance, has been radically altered by the recently discovered Horizontal Gene Transfer, where genetic material is transferred between species by some vectors, not just downwards by inheritance.

As science goes, evolution is good science. Anyone can question it and try to refute it. Of course, any such challenge must itself face peer review, and so far nobody has come up with a better theory to explain the observations.

The issue is not really one of people objecting for scientific reasons - it;s about religion. This theory (and others) conflict with certain religious dogma, so it's no accident that some (not all) religious people just refuse to accept it. They look for ways to refute it, including inventing myths about entropy and conservation of energy, and their 'flock' who don't understand science blindly accept their explanations. They even try to denigrate science itself, describing it as 'faith' based!

However, scientists don't. They see these flimsy or outright disingenuous explanations for what they are, and demolish them easily. Hence the two camps of accountable science aimed at questioning people, and blanket statements aimed at those who will just accept them.

In short, it plays on ignorance, an unquestioning acceptance of faith, and even a strong emotional irrational will to 'want' to believe certain things.

More proper education needed.