Hello Metis,
I'm back from family and a conference... great time of rest and recharging of batteries.
BTW, are you making the assumption that scientists that accept the basic ToE are not "Bible believers"? Surveys of scientists indicate that roughly half of them are theists, and surveys of Christian theologians indicate that most of them (around 70% if my memory is correct) do accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.
Of course, that's true. I don't make that assumption rather simply pointing out that with all these intellectuals, much smarter than I, have disagreements. On your figures, that means that 30% of them still have issues that put them on the "doubt" list. None of them doubt gravity or other such items.
That is the point I'm making. I'm not going to call the 30% fringe, crazy, don't understand science, flat earthers. They are intelligent and logical thinkers than have questions as do I.
Likewise, I'm not going to call evolutionists crazy either. They have points that must be addressed.
Subjectivity is not evidence but interpretation can be, which is why peer review, which can be sometimes quite brutal, is necessary. Even though a scientist may work alone, what they find as evidence must be open to full observation from others.
No doubt. And that is what I meant. Did I use the wrong word, oh great one?
Hear me out here... If peer review was done by "creationists", we would cry foul and rightly so. Why, then, is in not wrong when the peer review is done solely by evolutionists? Shouldn't there be a mixture?
Now we're into the hypothesis stage, and what's required there is for one to state a hypothesis that must include evidence that it is at least possible. We cannot just put forth an idea without any supporting evidence and call it a "scientific hypothesis". And scientific papers to form hypotheses are a pain in the butt to write, let me tell ya.
I'm sure you would know much better than I and I trust you on that.
Actually not when it comes to the basic ToE. It's only a debate with those who use their interpretation of their scriptures as a set of blinders.
Yes... that does happen, no doubt. Mea culpa.
But do we accept as fact that life came out of non-living substance when indeed it still remains a scientific hypothesis? It can't be reproduced, there is no empirical and verifiable evidence etc.
I remember going to Talk origins and, as a layman, simply going through how many "suppositions" were given and then later watched them uste suppositions stated as "fact" for future applications.
Thus... for me... it simply leaves a question mark.
Can I change? Certainly. But on the basis of evidence.
Life has evolved and still is evolving, and this we know with certainty. We can "debate" the specifics, and we can debate what the ultimate Cause may have been, but we know that life changes over time, which is why you've become more senile with age.
Take care, my friend.
I thought "senile" was "wiser". Did I use another wrong word?
Certainly discoveries are growing at an exponential rate and I am intrested in what we will dsicover.
Blessings.