OK so you don't trust Geology, Physics, Zoology, Biology, Meteorology, Astronomy, Botany, Anthropology, Archeology, or Paleontology. Perhaps an easier question might be what scientific disciplines do you trust?
>>Kalamata wrote: “No, Joey. I trust science as presented by scientists when it is verifiable. I distrust junk science, such as evolutionism, because there is no evidence to support it.”
>>Joey wrote: “OK so you don’t trust Geology, Physics, Zoology, Biology, Meteorology, Astronomy, Botany, Anthropology, Archeology, or Paleontology. Perhaps an easier question might be what scientific disciplines do you trust?”
I trust the evidence gather by all of those disciplines, Joey.
Mr. Kalamata
There are a lot of different ways in which one can view 'science'. However, for any view to be even marginally realistic, I would suggest that the possibility of change must recognized. Simply put, 'science' changes on a daily basis; new discoveries are made, established knowledge is revised or reinterpreted, and mistakes are (hopefully) corrected. Speaking of the latter, erroneous or fraudulent research is a real problem (for example, see https://retractionwatch.com ). A doctor of my acquaintance confided in me recently, that he tries to stay current (again, 'science' changes daily), but he doesn't know what published research is real, and what is fraudulent.
When I meet people who claim to base their lives on 'science', I often ask: "Is that yesterday's science, today's science, or tomorrow's science?" (The question can produce some lively discussion! ;^)