Scientific hypotheses are rated according to their credibility; as more and more data support a scientific hypothesis, the greater our confidence in it.If that hypothesis fits into a common pattern, successfully interlocking with established theories, then it gets another big plus.When great scientific ideas do fall, on rare occasions, they do so of many grievous wounds followed by the rethinking of the total picture.The idea, literally worshiped in creationist circles, that you can disprove a theory by whipping out some cute, isolated "proof" that settles everything at once and for all, is not scientific.If that hypothesis has no credible competition, despite much work in the area, then our confidence in it begins to soar.If that hypothesis also supplies us with numerous insights into nature, which are confirmed by further observation and testing, then it might attain the status of a "scientific theory." (Note that a scientific theory ranks very high in credibility, has been tested repeatedly, and serves as a successful framework for integrating and explaining a class of diverse, natural phenomena; it must not be confused with the layman's use of "theory" which refers to half-baked speculation or guesswork.Furthermore, isolated data, even if correct, are often misleading.Consequently, scientists must evaluate the total picture and avoid being fixated on specific points.
Infinitely more likely is the possibility that our sun might alternate between small periods of shrinking and small periods of expansion, a kind of oscillation.
The one thread running through "scientific" creationism is a fixation on particular arguments or "proofs" to the exclusion of all else.
This shows a profound misunderstanding of the scientific process by people who should know better. Hovind, for example, is blissfully ignorant of the relevant literature surrounding his "proofs." Consequently, his audience is given no hint of what the "competition" has to say.
Facts successfully explained do carry weight and cannot be ignored; facts that don't fit are not necessarily fatal to the central ideas behind a hypothesis.
Good scientific judgment is the art of weighing all these variables and properly evaluating the big picture.