As a person with a considerable interest in science, I found a few interesting aspects of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Particularly interesting was the postulation that new scientific theories (or paradigms) gain widespread acceptance not because they are necessarily true, or more true than a previous theory, but because they answer more questions, or answer questions better, than a previous theory. Also that these paradigms are accepted by the younger and/or more daring members of a scientific field, with the older and more conservative established members in the community often holding out the longest. A new paradigm does not truly take over until its critics die out of old age.

(I am putting my own Christian spin on this) Thus, the Big Bang theory is widely accepted not because it is true, but because it answers more specific questions than previous theories (not because it answers them correctly), and fits in better with scientists' world views (typically atheistic or humanistic). There are many times when a scientist (particularly when discussing origins, I might add) should say, "I don't know." Alas it is the nature of science to favor theories that provide explanations, whether they are true or not. It is also possible for science to devise a theory that pragmatically predicts and seems to explain many phenomena correctly, but is ultimately incorrect. Kuhn uses the example of the "phlogiston" theory for this. I have similar doubts about quantum mechanics.

Some theories gain acceptance because they answer questions in a way more aesthetically pleasing to scientists, i. e. more in line with scientists' personal beliefs and prejudices. Like evolution.

As an aside, I was also interested in what the author had to say about Darwin's ideas. It wasn't that Darwin was the first to posit evolutionary ideas (far from it), but that his theory "answered" more questions about the mechanism of how evolution worked. Of course modern evolutionists do not agree with most of Darwin's specifics, but that is irelevant to them. The point is Darwin's theories "solved" more puzzles than any evolutionary put forth prior. Also of interest was the author's statement that many scientists were reluctant to accept Darwin's ideas because his theories did not suppose that man was at the top of the evolutionary ladder, or that evolution had been guided by God with the purpose of creating man. Darwin was too revolutionary for even the evolutionists in some cases. They were uncomfortable with unguided, totally random evolution that might have come up with anything, or that would someday lead to something better than man.

I think evolutionists have gotten over their discomfort.