Science-how the study itself adapts and evolves!

Science!  One of the things that is often misunderstood and misconstrued is scientific theories (and the process by which they are derived).  One of the major problems for this is scientists have established their own little world with its own lingo and set of standards.  The good thing?  These standards have a very good tenancy to hold up (as in relation to society-more on this in a bit).  The bad thing?  Nobody normal gets it.  Mercy sometimes I don't get it, so let's talk about some of the things that science does that incidentally fuels the anti-Darwin fires.

1. THEORY: A theory as the average person thinks of it is a constructive thought process by which a philosophy or belief is based according to perceptions and observations.  Again, I cite the Annunaki (the reptile aliens from a previous post), which is a theory that aliens had intermixed with humans. The theory arose from ancient Sumerian text and carvings.  The beings have traits apparent in certain (select?) humans and the whole shebang.  The term is actually not even caught by spell check it is so common.  They even tie in the the UFO theories and the Builderberg Group/New World Order theories.  They all sound new, they're not mainstream, and honestly some of them are just plain crazy.  
2. HYPOTHESIS V LAW: The problem is scientists don't use the word theory as we just described it.  The term "hypothesis" would tie up much more closely to this definition-a series of ideas or questions built on observational framework.  A scientific theory comes much further down the process line.  First you have a hypothesis, then you propose how to test it, you test it, get results, and draw conclusions based on your test and the subsequent set of results.  For any long standing scientifically accepted theory, that process needs to be performed many times by many different people (repeatable results). Very similar to scientific law.  In fact, the law of gravity is actually a theory according to scientific terminology, but I don't see very many people jumping off the building in order to fly home.   
3. SOCIETY: Science, like every other construct is the black duck of society.  You follow what people want to hear or you get squished.  Example-Ptolemy was able to explain heavenly bodies in motion with an Earth at center basis, he used concentric circles so technically the pattern matched the data.  What was more important was that it matched societies view so it stuck around for 1600 years, even though Galileo figured out the real pattern much sooner than that.  But what happened to Galileo?  Oh, he died in prison...  Now Ptolemy did not screw with data and forcefully misconstrue anything, based on what he had to work with and his observations it fit the pattern fine.  The issue here is that poor Galileo got squashed when he had a DIFFERENT idea, and it took almost 200 years to make it mainstream.  Society also governs what's important, or what types of things scientists should focus on.  AIDS research didn't really go into full swing until the 1990's, but was discovered in the 1970s and named.  However, because of the stigma, it wasn't "important" for mainstream research so it was very difficult to get funding.  It's kinda like that city law that so many accidents need to happen in an intersection before they'll budget in a stoplight.
4. WRONG: Like I just mentioned, sometimes science gets it wrong.  Sometimes it's completely innocent-trying to draw conclusions based on only a few pieces of evidence.  But you have to start somewhere in order to make progress.  Sometimes though, people do bad things, which I'm sure doesn't surprise anybody.  And let's face it, this isn't a construct isolated to the sciences, or even to our society.  However, the example I want to use I've actually seen brought up in a Darwin v God debate.  His name was Johann Meckel.  He made a very famous move in the early 1800s.  Meckel believed development of an embryo mirrored evolution (not that strange of an idea in the early 1800s).  He spent several years of his life studying it.  The issue was (of course) that it just isn't true, the development of an embryo does not mirror the procession of evolution through time.  Instead of admitting his failure, he was so passionate and emotionally tied to his idea that he forged drawings and had them published.  These drawings were even used in textbooks for a couple of years until someone figured out his masking attempt.  That's the perk about science, it has to be testable and repeatable by someone else.  Of course, the drawings have been stricken from teaching and his name only comes up to demonstrate a very bad point.  In fact it took me 10 minutes and 5 pages in google images to find his little faux pas (he went on to do some other quite spectacular things medically).  The point is that even though science makes mistakes, it is able to admit the issue and adapt to new information (even if it takes a while) which is certainly more than can be said of other passionately driven constructs.  No societal construct is perfect!  See below for Meckel's naughty drawing.  

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof."

Ashley Montague