That'll be a good question to keep in mind should the situation ever arise. But until we have a *THEORY* that is *TRUE*, it'll just have to sit on the back burner.
Don't forget that truth is a word best avoided in science so science can't declare that something is true.
Brought to you by the folks at caltech of all places. And they should know if anyone does.
For the lurkers not following the discussion, I frequently post a definition from a CalTech physics website: Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/LiU/resource/misused_glossary.html
Don't forget that truth is a word best avoided in science so science can't declare that something is true.
I was not addressing the question to you. If I had, I would have been sure not to use the word "true," because I know you like to play coy little games with the different definitions of "truth," and I would have avoided giving you another opportunity to do that.
I addressed the question to wagglebee, who in an earlier post wrote, "I’ve made few statements regarding my opinion of the theory of evolution. In the end, it is either true or it is false and NO AMOUNT of debate can change that." That indicated to me that he was holding open the possibility that it was true (his word), so I wondered what he thought we should do if it was true AND had inspired evil deeds.
You're welcome to answer the question as a hypothetical, if you wish. Subsitute "well-founded" or "accurate" for "true," if that makes it easier.