schaef21: You know what BroJoe...I wish that were true....they keep trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It would be ok with me if they said something like “well, the most promising line of inquiry that we have right now is xyz but we currently have no explanation.” They really don’t ever do that.
BroJoeK: ****Where science has NO ANSWER, then of course, you are perfectly free to plug in WHATEVER ANSWER your religion or philosophy suggests. But YOU MUST NOT CALL YOUR ANSWER “SCIENCE,” BECAUSE IT IS NOT.****
schaef21: I don’t."
Look, I only know what I read, and I read Scientific American regularly, have now mostly finished Eugenie Scott's book "Evolution vs. Creationism." None of these talk the way you characterize them. In fact, when a careful scientist like Scott talks about science, she takes pains to point out just what science does & doesn't do, or what science can or cannot say.
She also carefully points out the differences among:
Now, if you want my humble opinion (?), I'll tell you just where I think your problem begins: you MISTAKE the word "science" for capitalized "TRUTH." It's not, not by a long shot. Science deals ONLY with one branch of "truth," and that's the branch of the the natural, material physical realm. Outside this area are whole realms of TRUTH which science can't touch. And I think if you understood even that much, you'd have less of a problem with this subject.
Which is undoubtedly part of the problem. It's akin to counting on NBC for the definition of what is or isn't journalism.
theories (confirmed hypotheses).
really?
Like string theory and multiverse theory have been "confirmed"?