The fight over Darwin - Teaching evolution in schools

[appolose]

Khuutra said:

appolose said:

Rath said:
Or he had a laptop running on battery and wireless =D

Also what science can't explain science won't explain, its not breaking logic its just leaving a mystery unsolved. It will never accept on non-falsifiable hypothesis because that violates the scientific method.

It is breaking logic; the basic tenant of science is :"If it is observed enough, it is assumed true".  Thus, in the event of two contradictory well-established observations, you would have a contradiction (they're both assumed to be true, as they've both been observed enough).  You can't leave it unexplained.  So, you are left with two choices; either forsake the basic tenant, or impose the only logical answer (supernatural).

Uh, this kind of already happened with classical physics, quantum physics, and relativity. The thingi s that none o them contradict the other except on certain scales and from certain frames of reference.

What you don't undnerstand, here, is that things that are assumed to be true are cast aside if they are found to be false. That's the most basic tenant of the scientific community's skepticism: there is no such thing as absolute adherence to "truth" because anything we "know" may be wrong. If evidence is found that can't be correlated, then we have to scrap a lot of field theories, but after that we're on our way just as before.

"Supernatural" is never a logical answer.

They are only found to be false when enough observations otherwise defeats the notion that it is well-observed.  The basic tenant of science is not skepticism; it's that judgements on sense data will relfect reality.  If it really was skepticism, then it would reject judgements on sense data.

If evidence cannot be correlated, which well-established observation is scrapped, and why?  Either one you pick, you'll be going against your many observations of it.  And if you do that, then you will have to discard any other well-established observations anywhere else you may have them (as, apparently, well-established observations do not match reality).