say come up with a different theory, would you follow him knowing that he is a stellar scientist and that his conclusions would probably be valid? Or would you stick with the origianl theories?
2007-02-02 05:43:13 · 12 answers · asked by Stacey B 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Drew I don't know where you got that idea from, but no, I only asked a question. I didn't even refer to religion, so why why speculation?
2007-02-02 06:04:49 · update #1
This is the beauty of Science, and where it differs from religion.
Science holds that a theory or idea is held up to scrutiny for all time, until new evidence or proof is shown to counter what was previously thought to be the case.
Religion is the exact opposite: i.e. believe what was "decided" in years gone by for all eternity, do not question, do not scrutinise or you shall BURN IN HELL..pmsl..
If a scientist/group of scientist could demonstrate an opposing theory to Evolution, then it would be accepted. However Evolution will never be countered because it has been proved, demonstrated and for all intents and purpose become fact.
Those who question Evolution are only ever religious, because the simple truth of it p1sses all over the bible and the koran, and with it the delusions of billions of people.
2007-02-02 05:53:17 · answer #1 · answered by Im a killer 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have seen a number of extremely well respected scientists make outrageous claims. These radical hypotheses are investigated. One of my favorites was a hypothesis that there were two lines of bats, and that the large bats, including the flying fox (which has a face that looks like a fox's) evolved from canids, the precursors of the modern canines and their relatives. Scientists all over the world pulled out their skeletons, fossil and modern, and tested the hypothesis. The evidence disproved the hypothesis, but it was not obvious at first glance. I'm not an anatomic taxonomist. I relied on expert opinions -- many of them. I read the papers that showed the evidence for and against, and was convinced by the evidence presented against.
This is the nature of science skepticism and challenge. Evolution is demonstrated as well as Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian physics breaks down at the extremes where relativity defines the universe better, but in most cases, Newtonian physics works. If anything supplants evolution, it will be an extension, not a disproof.
2007-02-02 06:01:00 · answer #2 · answered by novangelis 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Leading scientists in the field of evolution include Richard Dawkins, E.O. Wilson and the late Stephen Jay Gould.
These scientists, and many others, have come up with modifications and addenda to the theory of evolution which further explain its mechanisms or examine details of particular circumstances.
Their 'word' is not taken as gospel, nor are their theories accepted purely on their reputation. In science, it's all about the evidence. Those scientists that are able to gather enough evidence to support their theory find the theory accepted. Theories without supporting evidence, or that have evidence that contradicts the predictions of the theory find their theory is not accepted.
It's not a question of belief or following a particular leader, it's all about scientific evidence.
2007-02-02 05:50:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Personalities or individuals are irrelevant. A different theory would still have to come up with an explanation that fit all the available facts...not the picking and chosing of random pseudo-facts that Creationists make up. It would have to take into account the fossil record, radiometric dating, and many other known facts and come up with a testable answer. So far, no one has been able to do so.
Excepting the Creationists who somehow imagine that "Goddidit" is a scientific theory...
2007-02-02 05:49:35 · answer #4 · answered by Scott M 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Most likely the current theories would be revised based on the strength and validity of the new evidence presented.
2007-02-02 05:47:02 · answer #5 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
There wouldn't be one, but it would rather take a consensus of the scientific community to have me acknowledge revisions or changes to current theories.
It is not unheard of, especially in cosmological fields. In biology is has occured much less often.
That being said, I would look to Dawkins and others of his ilk for leadership if new information revised current thinking.
2007-02-02 05:53:44 · answer #6 · answered by QED 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would find ways to either disprove the running hot theory or find branches that lead to its truth (or plausibility)
Stephen Hawking and his rival are the two big cheeses in the science world.
2007-02-02 05:48:51 · answer #7 · answered by Cold Fart 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would read up on all the scientific journals and see what the consensus is. That's usually the way things are done. Are you trying to incinuate that science is a religion?
2007-02-02 05:49:23 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't follow men. I follow evidence.
Whatever theory has the best evidence is the one I hold as true, pending new evidence.
2007-02-02 05:50:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Stephen Hawking's ideas on space are so far-fetched and unprovable how can you believe anything he might think on evolution?
2007-02-02 05:54:56 · answer #10 · answered by usafatceo 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋