Science is a process that builds incrementally upon the works of others who have worked before in any field. Scientists use the best tools and observations available to them at any given time, and as the technology and the quality of our observations improves, so advances our state of knowledge. I will give you an example. Over 300 year ago, Newton published his understanding of how the universe works using a series of laws. Newton's laws defined a clockwork universe that works well for most of the conditions we deal with in our day to day lives, and is still used today by engineers and scientists for many tasks. About 100 years ago, Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity, which superseded Newton's laws and introduced a much better description of how the material universe and macroscopic objects behave. General Relativity works over a MUCH wider set of conditions, and can address the behavior of very massive objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light, which Newton's laws cannot do. This does not mean Newton was wrong, or his ideas should be discarded as irrelevant. The exact opposite is true. Newton advanced our state of knowledge enormously through his work, and later scientists have been able to build upon these ideas and advance them further.
...I'm constantly waiting for the irony of this to hit home among religious fundies.... nope. Never happens. They just don't grasp the topic well enough.
I'm a fundy. And I love science.
Sadly, a lot of atheists falsely think that science doesn't love me back.
And a lot of atheistic/scientistic academics goes berserk when you suggest that intelligent design should be an available menu option in the science classroom.
If the quest for truth is so important, why the strident censorship of competing ideas?
Why should intelligent design be considered a scientific theory? What predictions does it make and how these predictions be verified? You claim to love science but you appear to lack an understanding of what science is.
...They're constantly saying stuff that implies that they're suspicious about truth, but have faith in falsehoods... and don't get what they just said.
Nope. They aren't "suspicious about truth".
They are suspicious of falsehoods - those mistakes which science itself keeps correcting.
Science is a self-correcting process. Scientific claims are subject to peer review and correction. This is a GOOD thing. How does one go about verifying and correcting the claims made by creationists?
...Add to that the misunderstanding of what science is. As if it's a person. So any statement said by any scientist that's proven wrong proves all of science wrong.
Oh. You don't like generalizations?
...but you happily label Fundies and knock down strawmen who are "suspicious about truth".
Based on your posts here, it is obvious to me that you don't understand what science is.
...Ehe... no. It proves that science works. But you need to understand how science works to understand that. The fundies clearly don't.
Aren't you just another science fundy?
If by science fundy, you mean someone who believes in and adheres to the scientific process, than yes, many of us here are science fundies. We are open to facts and reason, and we can change our beliefs when new evidence is presented that contradicts previously held beliefs. As opposed to creationists who are unwilling to consider any new information and evidence that contradict their dogmatic beliefs. Shutting your eyes and ears and going lalala may drown out what others are saying, but is this really how you want to live your life?
