The scientific method allows for objective methodical investigation and testing of hypotheses based on "known",measurable,data only. Yet the scientific method can only carry one as far as the instruments can measure.
The flaw in the scientific method is the process by which data is organized inductively(by means of "inspiration","intuition", or some other mysterious A Priori bias that has been glossed over to sound "objectively mysterious and scientific")into a cogent workable scientific theory.
In two hundred years adherents of evolution have not been able to posit a strong enough theory that would effectively over come the "so called" religious view on the origins and development of life. Simply labeling adherents of a God centered view as having too strong a religious bias leaves those doing the labeling open to charge of bias them-selves.
We can't go back in time to see what really happened despite the best planned experiments that attempt to deductively show what might have happened X years ago.
Huh. So much for geology, astronomy, and murder trials.
Well, it's sort of like that old saw about democracy: it's a lousy system, unless you compare it to any other that's been tried. Deductive reasoning is powerless to talk about anything interesting, until murky inductive processes have invented them. It's a lousy slate of candidates, but, hey, that's democracy for you. Feel free to point me to the deductive proof of the theory of gravity, or the theory of plate tectonics whenever you are ready.
In two hundred years adherents of evolution have not been able to posit a strong enough theory that would effectively over come the "so called" religious view on the origins and development of life.
Not in the job description. There are many religeous views, including those held by the majority of christians, that do not posit a conflict between naturalistic biological theories, and religious views.
Simply labeling adherents of a God centered view as having too strong a religious bias leaves those doing the labeling open to charge of bias them-selves.
You give your side too much credit for being on the minds of most scientists, to any degree whatsoever. Save when they choose to claim a chair at the science table, at which point, they, quite rightly, get the same treatment as is the case with crystal healers and astrologers. It's not that they can be "proved" wrong. They can't. It's that they don't anti up in the coin of the realm to earn a place at the table. Whining and ranting and trying to get the government to declare that you're a science, ain't it.
We can't go back in time to see what really happened despite the best planned experiments that attempt to deductively show what might have happened X years ago.
You pin your hopes on a mighty feeble reed. It is perfectly sensible (and therefore, perfectly scientific) to reason inductively about the past, and to test the reliability of our theories using data we recover after we form the theories. If we didn't, we'd have perished long before we ever made it off the african veldt.