It adapts according to new evidence that is presented and not in relation to how it proves or disproves creationism. Scientists could care less what theory of biological origin is scrawled in any ancient texts. Just like a creationist doesn't pay attention to evidence, so to the scientist doesn't pay attention to ancient scripture.
Science changes its position when new evidence comes to light. That is its strength, not its weakness. It may appear less "authoritative" to people who are lost and looking for someone to tell them with certitude what is true and what is not true. But for the rest of us (who aren't lost, who don't find comfort in false certitude, who are merely looking for a more coherent understanding of the natural world) science's willingness to adapt its theories to new information demonstrates its trustworthiness.
EXAMPLE 1:
A fossilized bunny is found that disproves the current model of evolution.
Scientists: I guess the theory is wrong. Back to the drawing board.
Example 2:
A fossilized trilobite is found disproving the YEC model.
YEC: It doesn't matter what evidence comes to light. I am not changing my position.
Some people are convinced by hard-nosed certainty and inflexibility. I'm not one of them. That's why I find YECism implausible. It isn't honest in its consideration for the evidence. It is oblivious to evidence. It's position will not adapt or change no matter what is discovered. Plenty of people won't fault YECism for that, and its their right to believe what they want to believe. But me? I have my eyes open. I know the search for the truth isn't decided by whoever "sounds like they are certain."
Noble sounding words! But I expect you aren't interested in the intelligent design arguments, either, though they are looking at evidence and coming to the conclusion that an intelligence was involved in the design of creatures.
And the ID folks aren't alone in recognizing design. Evolutionists love to point out the designs "evolution" has come up with, marveling at their intricacies and complexities, and calling them "designed". It's just that the ID folks are willing to let the present be the key to the past in this areas, and say that if we only see irreducibly complex structures where there is an intelligent designer today, perhaps that has always been true.
Let me give you an example.
A man comes to the doctor's office. The doctor asks him, "What's the problem?"
"I'm dead," says the man.
"You are?" asks the doctor. "Do dead men bleed?"
"No," says the man.
The doctor jabs the man's hand with a needle, and a drop of blood appears on his hand.
"What do you think of that?" asks the doctor.
The man replies, "Well what do you know! Dead men do bleed!"
That's how scientists treat evolution: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". Yet time and time again, evolutionists are "surprised" and "shocked" by the results of experiments or by their findings in the field. Time and time again, the "history of <fill in the blank's> evolution" has to be rewritten. For normal theories, that would be the impetus to find a new theory. Not so evolution.
Let me give you another example. I took my daughter to the natural history museum last week. One of the docents was explaining some things about the displays in his area. After each statement, he had to say, "Well, we know this display isn't accurate anymore, because of such and such." Three displays in his area, three caveats. That's 100%!
So with a 100% failure rate on the displays, how much should I trust him when he actually made the statement above: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"?
