You make interesting points about "scientists"; you talk about how "the whole point of their activity" is to describe the physical world around us. Two points must be made here: 1 - No-one argues that scientists try to make sense of the physical world. 2 - You are confusing present, operational, empirical science with historical science. A continued canard that depicts those who disagree with Darwinian evolution as straw men who are easily refuted. Maybe you don't have any better arguments?
You said that "the reason scientific theories (models of reality) are commonly accepted is because they work as explanations and descriptions of The Real World...", yet "hindsight (aka history)" shows us that if a commonly accepted 'scientific model' does not work, the theory is slightly adjusted to fit the new evidence (take Ptolemaic astronomy or phlogiston theory as examples). It is no different today.
From a "lazy troll"...if you want to continue this, leave me a comment on my blog :)
1 - No-one argues that scientists try to make sense of the physical world.
2 - You are confusing present, operational, empirical science with historical science. A continued canard that depicts those who disagree with Darwinian evolution as straw men who are easily refuted. Maybe you don't have any better arguments?
You said that "the reason scientific theories (models of reality) are commonly accepted is because they work as explanations and descriptions of The Real World...", yet "hindsight (aka history)" shows us that if a commonly accepted 'scientific model' does not work, the theory is slightly adjusted to fit the new evidence (take Ptolemaic astronomy or phlogiston theory as examples). It is no different today.