The idea that evidence and its interpretation is neutral is a fairly outmoded concept in the philosophy of science.

Of course, as demonstrated by your own comment, the idea of excluding the middle is not so outmoded. My personal position is not at the extreme of believing the interpretation is totally neutral, nor do I believe it is totally predetermined.

Young earth creationists, and for that matter ID and old earth creationists to a lesser extent, use the tactic of attacking the validity of the scientific method to make their conclusions seem more plausible. But when they try to get specific, it becomes clear that their own interpretations are almost totally predetermined. They are the ones not open to new ideas and knowledge.

The idea that evidence and its interpretation is neutral is a fairly outmoded concept in the philosophy of science. Another good read is Lakatos/Feyerabend’s “For and Against Method”.

Relatively recently modern philosophers like Hume have helped to shape what we now think of as a modern scientific method. So it’s not so cut and dry as to say that science is impervious due to the use of the “scientific method”. Much of what passes for science in the public today would fail as pseudoscience when held up to the scrutiny of recent thinking about what the scientific method actually entails.

It’s especially true when you begin to deal with theories that try to deal with phenomenon that we can’t directly test and observe, such as an evolutionary argument for the origin of life. It is certainly clearly demonstrable by experiment that evolutionary principles are valid – this has been well proven by science. It isn’t, however, clearly demostrable through the use of the scientific method that these processes were responsible for the origin of life on earth. This requires the use of various other types of reasoning that have throughout time have sometimes been permitted or sometimes disallowed as part of scientific inquiry.

All that is to say, that science itself isn’t so black and white as it is commonly purported to be, even today.

There are bad scientists and good scientists as well as bad and good theologians.

Science never exists in a pure unadulterated form. It always has the taint of our humanity and as such it should always be viewed with some skepticism.

I don’t believe I have assumed that science is perfect. What I am assuming is that science has the means of correcting its errors, however long that may take.

One of the most compelling examples I came across in my early study of my chosen field (optics) was how Newton’s ideas on what light actually is were able to dominate for so long even in the face of contrary evidence. Partly because of Newton’s personality and the respect which he garnered, and partly because of societies leanings at the time. This doens’t mean his science was shabby or that it was even completely wrong. It was in fact partially correct, just not the entire story. Yet it took a very long time to unseat his conceptions within the scientific community and allow for a more cogent theory of light.

Science never exists in a pure unadulterated form. It always has the taint of our humanity and as such it should always be viewed with some skepticism. If you haven’t read Faster than the Speed of Light by Magueijo it is a good read to see just how human our scientific system of knowledge is.