Quote ="kirkstaller":2v223e3lOf course it is an opinion. Scientists believe it or not have their own biases. Why? Well because they interpret data through a naturalistic framework from which God is completely removed.
Ohter people, such as the creationists cited in the article, come to the table with their own baggage - their belief in God. They look at things through this lens and it helps shape their opinions on all kinds of things.'"
:2v223e3l
You are merely demonstrating your ignorance of science.
Scientists look at the evidence and form hypotheses based on this evidence they then test this evidence
and formulate theories which provide an explanatory framework to for data.
If a theory or hypothesis is falsified scientists discard the exsting theory and formulate new hypotheses which are consistent with the data and proceed to test these new hypotheses. This allows scientists to discard bad ideas such as the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old which was falsified by geologists towards the end of the 18th century.
It is the scientific method which has allowed our species to travel into space, to cure numerous deadly diseased and come up with important inventions such as the computer.
The reason why science employs methodological naturalism is because applying the supernatural to explain natural natural phenomena does nothing to enhance our understanding of such phenomena as such claims are in themselves unfalsifiable and cannot be tested and where they can be tested they have been falsified.
Creationists on the other hand begin with the apriori view that their religious doctrine is true and then proceed to reject all evidence which contradicts their position. This can be seen in the statements of faith that creationists organisations usually require of their members and also in the fact that the "work" of so called creation scientists consists of little more than logical fallacies, misrepresentations of the scientific data and outright falsehoods.
In essence most creationists hold the view that when reality and doctrine differ reality is wrong and doctrine is correct.
Quote :2v223e3lThis is the reason why you often get two groups of people looking at the same data and formulating conflicting views.'"
:2v223e3l
The reason is that one side has a sound methodology that works and has improved our standard of living significantly and the "other side" rejects any evidence which doesn't confrom to their particular ancient mythology and has a dogmatic belief in the "truth" of this particular mythology.
Quote :2v223e3lFacts are facts. They do not change. Scientific 'facts' on the other hand do change, and with some regularity I might add. How many times has something been declared a fact only for the scientific consensus to shift and declare it incorrect? Whilst you can claim that that it is admirable that science is willing to change and self-correct, you cannot label scientific theories as fact. In science, today's fact is tomorrow's blunder.'"
The fact that scientific findings are always open to revision is one of its biggest strengths. As mentioned above it is this that allows scientists to discard bad ideas that are unable to explain the scientific data such as those of creationists.