the past is not a readily observable phenomenon. Biology and geology have large branches devoted to history. These cannot ever produce an absolute, complete and final truth.
What they attempt is the kind and quality of investigation seen in a first rate criminal investigation, a reconstruction of the important features of the past that can survive any new evidence. Each new piece of evidence that is consistent with the reconstruction adds to its credibility.
The study of Science is not only about the study of the past.
The study of Science is the study of fact and of readily observable phenomena.
Science can study, though not exclusively, the events of the past using evidence which survives in the present. The evidence of the past which is present within an article is a readily observable phenomenon. This is called forensic science. It is a subset of Science, a discipline within Science, not the defining element of Science as you have errantly claimed it to be.
Factual and truthful conclusions may be made from examining evidence of a past event in the present.
Biology and geology have large branches devoted to history. These cannot ever produce an absolute, complete and final truth.
Statements regarding observations made about each of these branches may be subjected to the scientific method. The method answers questions as "Yes," "No," or a number. If the scientist is honest his answers to the questions posed by the scientific method will be truthful.
Absolute and final truths about scientific observations are made regularly. Ask any analytical chemist. Or you can just ask me, since I have been one for years.
Forensic science is a subclass of Science itself -- the study of factually sound, truthful and honestly made observations, about a tangible item which exists in the present, as one views this item, and which bears readily observable evidence of a past event(s).
Because no one from what we today consider to be scientifically accredited institutions of learning was present in that "past," you claim therefore that one can't know "truth" because "one" wasn't there. Then you errantly extrapolate that flawed thinking to say that the study of science and the search for truth are mutually exclusive.
The honest pursuit of science seeks truthful answers to questions posed by the scientific method. The study of science cannot legitimately be divorced from the search for the truth.
What they attempt is the kind and quality of investigation seen in a first rate criminal investigation, a reconstruction of the important features of the past that can survive any new evidence. Each new piece of evidence that is consistent with the reconstruction adds to its credibility.
Again, you describe forensic science, not Science, itself.
I gave you two challenges and you responded to neither:
Try saying something reliable about a readily observable phenomenon that must not at the same time be truthful to make it credible.
The opposite of false is true. The opposite of true is false. The opposite of credible is not credible, the opposite of reliable is not reliable.
The opposite of fraud is integrity. Integrity is the result of one's consistent and unwavering demonstration of trustworthiness. Trustworthiness may only be established by unwavering demonstration of one's truthfulness and honesty.
Do we agree with all the above statements, beginning with the statement, the opposite of false is true?
You said Science "debunks fraud,"
Next Challenge: try saying something false which debunks fraud.
Then answer: "How can one rationally say that they can divorce the concept of truth from the concepts of either reliability or credibility?"
You may not realize it, but your attempt to divorce the study of Science from the search for truth reveals why evolutionists who have also consistently tried to do what you are doing have lost all credibility in the process by definition.
Truth, in your minds, is whatever you want it to be, not the result of an honest objective study of the facts and evidence thereof which is available. If the facts don't fit with your evo-premise, the facts be damned (we're not in the search for truth anyway!)
And that's why you guys are the perpetual suckers for likes of Haeckel, of Piltdown Man, of Peking Man, of Nebraska man, of today's von Zeiten. You love to be lied to, so long as you think it promotes the evolutionary premise, which is at odds with a search for truth. And you call that science, do you?
If you're not in the search for truth through discoveries made by science, why should anyone be surprised that evolutionists so willingly believe lies and the charlatans who peddle them?
If you don't have hard data for anything, or real data points the other way, your evolutionary premise supposedly trumps the data. What you do instead is you substitute your conclusions, based upon a false premise -- evolution -- for readily observed facts.
Darwinism is a faith, based in a religion called scientism. It is the religion of the self-ordained, and allegedly intellectual. It is upon whose alter these "intellectuals" have sacrificed their morals, their intellects, their objectivity and their common sense. The search for truth has nothing to do with spouting the platitudes of Darwinism. You've admitted as much. However, readily observable facts speak to truth. The facts and the truth they hold are at odds with your faith.
That's why evolutionists don't want to debate points regarding readily observable facts -- ID being the most readily observed fact for anyone with one ounce of common sense to appreciate. It's against their religion. The honest study of facts reveals flaws in the Darwinist's premise. It is why a discussion regarding intelligent design turns into a spitting match about religion, because the notion of ID is at complete odds with their religious beliefs and it offends their belief system and the entire world view that the evolutionist has constructed around it.
Truth is truth. Facts are facts. Science is science.
Evolutionary dogma is at odds with all three, and its religious cult followers don't seem to care.
That which one calls science that is neither grounded in facts nor in truth, quite simply is not Science.