Science is resistant to change once it's decided something is right because there is a huge pile of evidence saying something is right, and until something else destroys that evidence or has an even bigger pile of evidence in it's favor, there is good reason not to change.
I think it was Richard Dawkins that said "all scientists want to disprove accepted theory in order to make a name for themself". If somebody could actually disprove evolution, he would be a god (no pun intended). If somebody, or some group was capable of that, they would do it and then flaunt their evidence for the entire world to see. Science isn't resistant to change so much as it is skeptical of new or unproven ideas...which is what makes science, science.
But I'm just ranting.
You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.
