Then why all the attitude? I'm guessing you didn't bother to read the actual "article" in question. It didn't appear to me they were calling for the GTR to be abandonded but rather more openly questioned.
They made a point which I think is valid, that the "wide acceptance" of GTR as fact, rather than theory, could retard progress in that field of science. Just look at the knee jerk reaction the suggestion of GTR's fallability has solicited from you. Attacking anyone who points out the fallability of the GTR theory is no way to go about finding a new, and better, theory.
In fact, I read this article and others about this very issue before I saw it on this forum. In fact, the person who initiated this whole thing made a point of arguing from the very same ignorance of Albert Einstein and his works that others, particularly in the creationist movement, have made. There is nothing wrong at all with questioning scientific theories. But there has to be a sound scientific basis for such questioning, not a political or religious one. And with that in mind, the fact is that there are physicists today who are calloing parts of GTR into question, but not because they think it is wrong, but that like Newton's theories before it, it doesn't tell the whole story. This is to be expected, as I pointed out earlier.
The other issue I have is with the one(s) from these articles who are questioning the theory itself. They are neither scientists respected in the field of cosmology or physics, nor apparently, well versed in the scientific method. So the question arises, what qualifications do they have to make the claims they are making? And with what hard data are they making these claims?
I'm not claiming GTR is wrong, I think it is the best explanation out there so far, but the reality remains that it has not been proven to be a fact (true). To ignore it's contradictions with known scientific laws is illogical.
No, the original poster made these claims:
"It is already well known that the theory of evolution is a liberal plot to destroy religion, and of course, global warming theory is yet another plot by liberals to take over the world and enslave us all, but there is one more theory that must be rejected in order to preserve one's conservative credentials."
"The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.[1]"
Neither of which is correct. And as I pointed out in my first post, they conflate relativity with relativism. One has nothing to do with the other. And the first claim precludes the notion that there are conservatives or religious folk who are working in the field of evolutionary biology. Certainly there are, and I have encountered them in my own work as a geologist. And so when you ask me why people automatically assume that it is conservatives who are attacking science it is by and large because you don't see liberals doing it. How many liberal creationists are you aware of? The OP's orignal quote above shows clearly that they believe that "liberals" are using evolution to attack religion. He doesn't say that conservatives are doing it. He blames liberals. The fact is that the theory of evolution says nothing about religion, and in fact many religious people understand and accept the theory. My first positive exposure to it was in science class in a Catholic school.
Here you are saying that because many people believe it to be correct, that it is more likely to be correct. That is illogical.
Scientists are highly trained technicians. I'm a geologist, for instance, and have had many years of education in physics, chemistry, biology, earth science, and other fields. So is a person off the street more qualified then I am to say that ewvolution is or is not a fact? Is a preacher who admittedly has very little science education qualified to tell people that evolution is not real?
Re-read my essay above about burden of proof. It is relevant to your question.
If you want to argue that something is more likely to be correct because a great number of people believe it to be so, then the God analogy is very apropos.
The difference is that scientists propose theories based on empirical data that is refutable, repeatable, and makes predictions that can be tested and quanitified. If you can figure out how to test "God did it", let us all know.
That's nonsense. Only if you wanted to replace the current theory with your another would you have to both disprove the first and prove the second
But replacing the theory of evolution is exactly what creationists seek to do. The problem is that they have nothing that better explains the facts than the theory of evolution. In the scientific world, replacing theories is VERY rare. Most commonly, they are elaborated on, as the GTR elaborated on Newton's work.
