One cannot love science as much as these pinhead fake science nerd hipsters like to profess, and not be so in awe of the vastness and complexity of creation to not see the face of God in all of it.
One only needs to look at a video showing the scale of everything in the universe from the smallest thing we can see tot he largest and not feel humbled by what he has created. Only an arrogant roach would think they we even begun to pick at the secrets creation to be so smug as to discount that there is a God.
Our understanding is but a grain of sand on the beach of God’s knowledge.
I grew up in a family with generations of MD’s and PhD’s/researchers/inventors. They were all Christians with the view you have. The ones I have known would and do laugh at someone who claims theories are facts. Settled science? That is not possible in science in most cases. Everything in the past is subject to challenge with new discoveries in the future. That is a fact of science and how it progresses. You have to be humble in science if you are real.
Popes of the past are the ones who punish people in the West for new discovery that contradicts current knowledge and theories. We changed all that in the Western tradition of science. Now it’s the algores of the world who act like Popes.
You truly stunt science (with or without religion) with the view of the atheists you describe. One of my sons is a scientist. He laughs at the notion of “settled science” among Marxists/atheists or just plain dummies repeating crazy slogans. The “settled science” of man-made climate change makes him laugh; it’s such a silly notion given all that affects the climate with or without mankind. The climate is never stagnant.
His grandfather always said that if you truly want to know the truth, just look at the solution being proposed by politicians to solve the problem they say exists. Taking the political game of man made climate change.... Does a global socialist government’s control of currency, taxation, healthcare, energy, land use and food, (or any one of these) being proposed by the global climate freaks, make sense for the solving the supposed solution of keeping the climate from changing? The answer is no. The climate is guaranteed to be in flux as it has been throughout history. It is natural for the climate to change. A Christian might say, it is the way God created the earth - a climate that changes - so far as we scientifically know anyway. So the politicans’ proposed solution exposes the lie of the claimed problem.
Note the form of scientific action: "If A is true, then B should result. I perform an experiment to test A, and the result is B. Therefore A is true." As any logician will confirm, this is a logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent." After all, there might be many other reasons why B followed the test of A, and A had nothing to do with it. However, because there is a knowable order in the universe, this process actually works. We do get cause and effect sorted out.
I approach science from the opposite direction, specifically the scientific method. I compare “doing science” with playing a game of chess.
Both have rules exclusive to what is being done. And if you have done either while carefully following the rules, you have done just that.
That is, if you play a game of chess while following the rules, you have played a game of chess. You cannot extrapolate or interpolate from that.
The same with a scientific experiment. If you carry out an experiment according to the rules, you have done just that. And if someone else can follow the same rules and get the same results, the experiment is “scientific”. But it only shows just that experiment, nothing can be extrapolated or interpolated from it.
Now granted, there are any number of rules you can add to a game of chess. Or take away. But the end result would *not* be a game of chess, because it was not done following the rules.
And the same with science.
One of the biggest mistakes that scientists make is assuming that the abstracts, like mathematics, they use in their experiments, actually create reality, rather than just abstractly describe it. It is “Adam’s conundrum.”
That is, God created reality, then created Adam to label and describe it. Adam saw a dog and decided to call it a dog. But then he confused labeling something with creating it. “It wouldn’t be a dog if I hadn’t called it a dog.”
The deeper you get into physics, the more you understand that there is no other possible explanation for all matter except for a Supreme Being.
But God understands that his creation is curious. He has given us so many wonderful things to discover.
I believe that God “derived” the initial function value that we discovered as mathematics.
I don’t worship science, but it is nice to have an explanation, to the following questions, instead of ‘because’:
‘How d’at be d’at, and how d’at git to be d’at?’
‘How d’at happen?’
‘Wha’ I do tuh make d’at happen, and kin I do d’at again?’
‘How d’em t’ings git togethuh, and move like d’at, widdout sumptin’ stoppin’ d’at from goin’?’
‘Wha’ make d’em stars be?’
‘How birds know to git before it gits cold, and to come back when it gots warm?’
‘How can a piece o’ glass in a tube make a star bigger?’
‘How d’ey take sand from duh beach, and make glass?’
Lastly, in terms of gastronomics ...
‘How ma-yo-naisse don’ come apart?’
‘How come bacon smells, and tastes, so good?’