Christopher O'Brien of Northstate Science discusses what Ken Ham’s Creation 'Museum' is doing. The 'museum ' tries to cause doubt in science by pointing out bears have sharp teeth and eat vegetation therefore dinosaurs could have been herbivores: (my bold)
Certainly the responses to these observations are important, but that is not what prompted me to write this post. What really intrigued me was the process I engaged in while obtaining the information. It is the process of discovery that, as much as the answers, serves to radically distinguish science from creationism in all its forms. As I said, my reader raised several issues that, on face value, would be sufficient for most people to stop and wonder if Ham and AIG weren’t at least raising a legitimate issue. For Ham, AIG, and on a different level, the intelligent design advocates, inquiry would completely cease at this point. See, O’Brien is wrong: polar bear teeth are hardly different from other bear teeth and they exclusively eat meat…hence it is possible that tyrannosaurs ate vegetation at one time. Here, the entire goal is accomplished: raise reasonable doubt with the general populace at large.The deliberate misuse of the word 'theory' is another attempt to muddy the waters, trying to get people to have reasonable doubt over a rigourous process such as science. Remember, gravity is a theory, so it's a theory that holds us onto an orbiting ball as it hurtles through space.
But science follows a completely different process. Upon reading the phrase “polar bear teeth are hardly different from other bears” the first thing I did was ask myself, “is that true?” and reach for a book on mammalian anatomy; and I did it so sub-consciously and automatically that the significance of the act did not become apparent until a few hours later. Scientists constantly question whether their data (and others') are correct…it’s ingrained as part of the process. The same cannot be said for creationists.
I'd rather have science than faith explain to me why I don't fall off.