When to disagree with the experts.

[McCulloch]

Just attacking a model is not science, but it also has to bring forth an alternative model. And that I also am attempting to do with the FM. My goal is not to "convince" anyone to my side, but to show that the model is reasonable and supportable by empirical evidence. And that an appeal to faith is not necessary to believe in its plausibility.

This is something else I take issue with. What gives you the credibility to propose ANY model? Are you a geologist? Biologist? Ecologist? Hydrologist? etc. How can you propose a model when you dont understand the fundamentals behind it? The current model is highly interdisciplinary, has taken over 100 years and has thousands of papers published supporting it.

The flood model has none of this.

My goal is not to "falsify" modern science. But I do challenge and question modern science. And I think it's also hubris to think that any field of science cannot be challenged.

Once again, this is good and all, but far too often people question things not on their merits, but rather because they conflict with other beliefs. People only question evolution because it conflicts with religion. This is why you never see atheists questioning evolution. Same goes for geology.

You NEVER see the same type of questioning in fields like ecology, chemistry, physics, etc.

The experts do sometimes get it wrong. But in the sciences, is it at all rational or reasonable for someone without in depth knowledge of the specific field, to challenge the consensus of those who have made it their life's work to study it and have the recognition of their peers. As far as I am concerned, no one with only a bachelor's degree or less, is truly qualified to do any more than follow what the experts say and try to keep up.

Question for debate: When is it reasonable for a non-specialist to disagree with the consensus of the experts in a modern scientific field?

[thatoneguy]

There is, however, an important distinction to be made between being an expert and being an expert in the field under deliberation. Mr. Behe may well be an expert in some ways, but in the field of evolution, as has been demonstrated every time he has decided to weigh in on the topic, he isn't.

Well, the Dover case was about ID. And I'd certainly say Behe is considered an expert on that. As for Behe being an expert on evolution, I cannot say one way or the other.

First of all, that is a useless distinction. Ignoring that fact for a moment, all of Behe's testimony was on evolution, not ID. Maybe the case was on ID, but he spent his entire testimony attacking "flaws" in evolution. Flaws that no expert in evolution saw.