Originally posted by PinkFloyd
A lot of people were willing to "take the facts where they (stood)" regarding Piltdown Man, Ptolemy's Earth-centered universe, and a little something called a Steady-State theory. Einstein himself said "The important thing is to NEVER stop questioning." It seems to me that scientists often forget this, and it is people who introduce "radical" ideas like greatness of science, pick a better subject; they are proof that the world is devolving.
Yes. A lot of people. But not all. I take most things that most other scientists find as essentially facts, because I'm not qualified in that area to develop those theories more than the people working in that area. I'm no physicist, for example.
In my own subject area, plant biology / biochemistry, I am qualified to further those ideas, which I do every day. I never stop questioning, and neither do most other scientists.
However, that said, the questions must be logical, relevent and sensible. Do I question that evolution occurs? No. The reason is that the balance of evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of evolution that I doubt it will ever be overturned. Does that make me complacent? Perhaps, but we cannot question everything, forever. We have to take the knowledge we glean at some point and use that to develop more science. For an example of this, think about weighing a leaf. Do I necessarily believe what the balance says is absolutely accurate and "real"? No. Actually, I know the balance has limitations, and inaccuracies. However, the balance is certainly indicative of reality. So, whilst balances can continue to evolve and improve, and those readings I make now can and will be improved in the future, I use my results to underlie my work on protein turnover, seed germination, plant photochemistry or whatever I'm studying.
The strength of science is that we find out and improve our mistakes through time. The best ideas, the enduring ideas, the ones that the evidence supports, do continue and become stronger.
In the case of my discussion with Kelly, all available evidence, from Red-shift to the Cosmic Background Radiation supports the Big Bang theory. I trust the evidence, and therefore find the Big Bang concept all but inescapable.
If you want me to discourse on the grandeur of science, and of the achievements of scientists, well, I can do that too, but it gets old really quickly.
[edit; ID is not a scientific endeavour. It rests upon an untestable assumption of some type of creator. If someone can devise a test for this creator, then it might become a scientific hypothesis.]