EvoWiki is now a project of the
We are moving all content to RationalWiki.
See the for details! .
Scientific findings are always changing
Revision as of 00:24, 23 April 2008 by Elassint
- Egilson, G. H. 2003. For creation. Post on talk.origins, 23 Oct., Message-ID: , 
- Matthews, Michael. 2003. A century of fraud. 
- This claim directly contradicts another creationist claim, "Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma." It is very bizarre to conclude that scientists uphold dogma with ever-changing data.
- It is a very poor scientific theory that doesn't change to fit newly discovered facts.
- Ignoring something out of an unfounded belief that it will change would dismiss all of modern scientific theory, such as physics or mathematics - and yet no creationist would reject a history textbook that says Bill Clinton was President of the United States if it was written before the year 2000. The book would still have value regarding events before it was written. And a more recent edition of the same textbook that says George W. Bush is President would be even better. Should we reject both textbooks because they make different statements instead?
- William Blackstone in 1765 (quoted in Sagan 1996) wrote: "To deny the possibility, nay, actual existence of witchcraft and sorcery is at once flatly to contradict the revealed word of God in various passages of both the Old and New Testament." Examples like witchcraft and geocentrism show that the way religious texts are interpreted has changed and modernised.
- Scientists try to provide the best explanations that fit the best available evidence. This is augmented by continual research and error correction. It is more questionable to trust a dogmatic (religious) source that refuses to change belief in the face of new evidence.
- Do Creationists feel it would more prudent to treat diseases with pure mercury and powdered galena (lead ore) as they did 300+ years ago, even though current scientific theory says that both are highly toxic?
- While there is a constant turnover of hypotheses and asumptions, leading to refinement of theories, the theories themselves are rarely (if ever) overturned, because theories are by definition supported by many different avenues of research. The major revolutions in the history of science have either been major illuminations of something missing (but no significant error) -- for example, the modern synthesis of evolution with genetics, or Einstein's contributions to physics -- or the triumph of science over pre-scientific myth, as in the case of Copernicus and Darwin.
- add more responses
Fallacies contained in this claim
- Slothful Induction (being slow to accept a theory without giving a good reason)
- Straw Man (evolution is not based on Appeal to Authority - "what scientists say")
- Appeal to Confidence (trust has no bearing on validity)
- Mark Isaak's page for this claim 
- Cotch.net: Scientific findings are always changing
- Blackstone, William. 1765. Commentaries on the Laws of England.
- Sagan, Carl. 1996. The Demon Haunted World. New York: Random House. ISBN 0345409469
- Evolution is only a theory
- Evolution hasn't been proved
- Evolutionary explanations keep changing, while creationist accounts remain the same