The problems aren't brushed aside. They are seen as gaps in our knowledge. The difference is in how each side approaches it. Evolutionary biologists see these gaps as areas to fill with knowledge. ID advocates see them as gaps to fill with god. When you compare these two approaches, you see that one is flawed. We know we have gaps in our knowledge, there always have been and always will be. Thousands if not millions of gaps, of all sizes. Over the decades, the gaps are progressively and endlessly resolved as understanding advances, showing natural mechanisms in their place each and every time. To pick a gap that currently exists and claim it is unable to be resolved is an argument from ignorance. This is what all of Behe's complicated efforts reduce to - a fallacy. In the decades since he's been claiming that various gaps are too problematic to be resolved, he has been shown wrong time and again, but he always moves on to another gap, or another way to word the same gap.Flann wrote:I think there is a tendency to just brush aside problems with the theory, on the grounds that the considerable majority of experts agree or the courts have ruled.
People also believe the Earth is hollow and that the Earth orbits the sun and that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old. People have no trouble believing ridiculous things. It's the true stuff that people seem to have a problem with.And while so many (shockingly!) have trouble believing in evolution, it seems some have no trouble believing in the above proposition.
Sure, as long as you add the caveat that it is the most effective tool we have at uncovering truths about our universe. It is also the most effective tool we have at minimizing the sorts of biases that are prevalent in social constructs. Saying that science is a social construct is like saying that many people participate in it. That is not a detrimental characteristic, it is a necessary one. The alternative is that a single man declares he has the truth, and everyone else accepts it blindly.ant wrote:In short: science is a social construct.
Continuing to point out the limitations of science that everyone here is aware of does not change our views on the topic of evolution. Every other method of acquiring knowledge has far larger limitations. Science is the best we can do. Show me wrong and propose an alternative.