Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[total relism]

Positivist science is supposed to be self-correcting over time. The scientific method is about proving what can be proved and then basing reasonable conclusions as to understanding a phenomenon based on what can be confirmed through research. It is SUPPOSED to alter when it encounters either contradictory results or the state of the art allows for a newer and fuller understanding based on the use of an improved research methodology.

Agreed.

The theory of evolution has been tested and re-tested and yes, some of the data collected by research does not fit with the current explanation as promulgated in that theory. This becomes the tool for enhancing that theory and making it a more accurate explanation/predictor, as new research is used to explain and resolve the anomalies. If the anomalies come to outnumber the provable facts, we end up with what Kuhn labeled a 'paradigm shift' as the prior central theory is discarded and a new one takes its place.

Once more this is how it is suppose to work, and the rise of modern creation and ID likely are the beginnings of this. However you have left out the politics of it all. If not for the politics the shift would have came but the evolutionary gatekeepers as of known are preventing it.

Newton's discussion of gravity and energy were not "wrong" even though they fell short at explaining some phenomena. intellectual progress and new ways of learning information demonstrated that his theories were limited because even though they worked pretty well to describe terrestrial conditions, they fell short past the atmosphere. So F=ma becomes E=mc² becomes something else a couple centuries from now. Communication is about the accurate transmission of a message and message fidelity is everything, becomes communication is about how that message is understood by the receiver so interpretation is everything becomes communication is a simultaneous symbol exchange that is inevitably imperfect by we develop rules in the moment to let us negotiate meaning between us becomes who the heck knows what a few decades from now.

Science is not static, "si muove."

Agreed. However when a theory increasing has to be altered and increasing is at ods with observation, when can we let science win? and give up the faith?


"Fundamental truths about evolution have so far eluded us all, and that uncritical acceptance of Darwinism may be counterproductive as well as expedient. Far from ignoring or ridiculing the ground-swell of opposition to Darwinism that is growing, for example, in the United States, we should welcome it as an opportunity to reexamine our sacred cow more closely." —*B. Storehouse, "Introduction," in *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 12.


"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."
—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

"A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification."
—Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 31.