Yes, but unlike most creationists and design proponents, Galileo and Copernicus went out and did the research, the studying and the maths to validate their ideas.
They didn't just say "No! it's wrong! Wah wah wah!
They did the work.
What you are missing or ignoring in all this is that there are scientifically trained minds which evaluate that work and math and after that careful work of evaluation conclude that it is bogus. That's the part you seem unable to accept.
.
They gathered the evidence, followed where it led, and by dint of having a novel insight and slightly better data (Brahe), they were able to demonstrate that a Copernican model for the solar system described the observations better than the Ptolemaic model did. The Copernican model made predictions that could be, and were, tested. And still are, to this day.
True! And no one challenges those conclusions because they are established fact. You don't see scientists of the caliber I quote challenging those findings because those findings have proven to be scientifically undeniably true. In contrast, evolution has indeed caused scientists of considerable repute to find fault both with the methodology used and with the conclusions reached. To glibly dismiss their disagreement as scientific ineptitude without examining objectively what the essence of their disagreement is about isn't scientific. It's fantasy and fanaticism is similar to blind faith because blind faith tolerates no possibility of possible alternate explanations.
Is the Copernican model perfect? No. It has trouble in extreme situations. But it was better than the Ptolemaic model (and even that didn't happen over night). But it isn't perfect.
So, more observations, more research, and another brilliant person, and we have General Relativity. Which can handle those extreme situations. But the Copernican model was so good that in situations other than those extremes, the two theories say the same thing ("say" being a reference to the language of math). Is general relativity perfect? No. It has extremes where it breaks down too. But it extends further than the Copernican model can. it makes better predictions, and better explains observed reality.
That is all science is. An effort to better explain observed reality.
That is why it constantly changes.
That is why Evolution is accepted so widely.
And it is why Evolution will remain the accepted explanation for the diversity of life*, being continuously adapted and updated based on the newest observations, until a better explanation takes over.
To date, there is no better explanation.
AGAIN!
I hope you realize that you again are creating a straw man and attacking it. It's not the scientific method per se that's being questioned ass I previously pointed out. It's the violation of the scientific method that's being focused on.
Obviously the scientists quoted respect that method and have dedicated their lives to uphold. That's why they dedicated their life to science. However, when they come upon the MISUSE of that method and unwarranted conclusions being reached vin violation of the exigencies required by that method, then they feel it their professional responsibility to speak out. Unfortunately,when they do, of course, those who think that consensus is a panacea raise their voice in protest.
Intelligent Design?
Completely and utterly untestable, no matter how much individuals like Mr. Behe might whine about his sciencey-sounding words.
The fundamental premise of Intelligent Design is Incredulity/Ignorance.
"I don't 'believe that'/'understand how' this "complex" feature could arise through natural processes. Therefore GOD!"
It explains nothing, it predicts nothing, it adds nothing to the understanding of the natural world.
It is a capitulation to ignorance, and has no place in science.
Unless, that is, someone actually manages to objectively prove the existence of a "designer". Good luck.
The way you describe it--of course it explains nothing. but that's not the way theses scientists describe it as you would know if you had read the quotes which obviously you didn't
Hmmmmm! I see!
You really believe that all conclusions must involve the scientific method? Then you are deficient in the ver important use of logic which helps scientist reach conclusions without going through series of experiments. Ever hear of inductive and deductive reasoning? Without it science gets nowhere. I would suggest you read up on it before continuing this discussion since denial that truth can be discovered via cogent reasoning is pointless.
Anyway, you are blatantly misrepresenting the reason for these scientists disagreements. They aren't simply throwing up their hands and saying "We must believe in ID because there is nothing better". They are saying that the EVIDENCE they detect is too compelling to ignore. So you either didn't comprehend simple English or else didn't even read what they said because to you its alll Wah! Wah! Wah!
So, until Evolutionary critics stop whining and actually perform some research, you aren't going to accomplish single damned thing. In fact, you merely join the illustrious ranks of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, geocentrists, solid-iron-surface-sun loons, and many other woo crackpots claiming persecution everytime their dearly held beliefs are shown to be wanting.
So stop crying about how "big science" is persecuting the righteous objector, and actually find something factual to base your objections on. Or else shut up. because unless and until someone does the research, you have less than nothing. Another point: Scientific models are molded around and modified to fit reality and observation. Not the other way around. Starting with your model and then looking for ways to fit what is observed into it is a recipe for disaster.
Again he continues to inform me of what I told him I already know! This is getting tiresome! In short, that's the only reason he can imagine for a disagreement with Evolution. Even the scientists who are infinitely more qualified than he is are tagged as ignorant of the scientific method. This conversation is useless and should have been terminated as soon as the indications of irrationality presented themselves.
BTW
No research is necessary in order to spot such quackery as wild generalizations based on unrepresentative or scanty evidence. Or blatant inconsistency of investigative criteria. Anyone with a basic knowledge of cogent reasoning can spot that and tag it for what it is--unjustifiable and unethical and motivated by ulterior motives.
* NOT the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the formation of planets, or whatever other things a certain bible-believing moron wants to lump in there.
Oh Oh!
I was wondering when you were going to start name calling since your quasi reserved diatribes were just barely on the fine line between utter contempt and decency. But hey? No problemo!
