Such a statement has no meaning in science, which seeks the best explanation consistent with the evidence.
Science can rule out explanations that are not consistent with available evidence, but it will always be revising its theories and conjectures to fit new evidence.
This does not men science cannot be confident about its assertions; it just means that theories are continually being refined. As a general rule obsolete laws and theories remain true for the subset conditions known at the time they were formulated.
I’m not sure what you mean when you say science. Each man (normal man) is made to desire the truth. Nobody wants lies or errors. What you say is how science is supposed to work, but it’s not always so. History is replete with examples of available evidence which defies current theory (at the time) which is ignored or changed, to support whatever current theory is popular, for a whole host of reasons.
My point is that if religion and science are at odds over a point, more investigation is required in both fields. Science is supposed to be based upon verifiable facts which can be repeated and confirmed. Religion, or faith, if you will, is based upon revelation in many cases, but is confirmed by philosophy and theology. Some of the thought can be confirmed with confidence via logic. Now, logic is not alien to science. Some things in philosophy flow from first assumptions, and are as true as any scientific fact, assuming man can reason. If man can’t reason, science is lost, also.
This was begun by a quote from a “scientist,” who said that everything came from another dimension and just appeared. The point I was making is that what he said has nothing to do with science, and he was trying to use his degree in science to give weight to an idea that has nothing to do with the field of which he has his degree.
As far as revising theories to fit new evidence, that as it should be. The problems arise when the theories are revised to fit new theories which have no scientific evidence, but rather philosophical leanings, and in this case, the popular idea that God does not exist. The idea of God is a philosophical certainty, according to courses I took on college, aside from various religions. How that is taken from there matters to most of us, but for this discussion, matters little. The whole argument here is that somehow, the universe exists without the Creating God, but with the accident god.
What I’m getting at is that there is a bias in the “scientific community,” now, that will only accept evidence that excludes the Creator God. Gravity is a scientific fact. We may not understand it, but we can predict it, we can mathematically describe it, and we can repeat all the experiments we want to confirm it. That is true. The problems arise when some “scientist” says the law of gravity was NOT made by the Creating God.
The scientist, you see, is well equipped and an expert at testing the details of gravity, but when he declares where the law came from, he’s completely out of his field of expertise. -Glenn