[Dimensio]

If scientists approached their investigations with honesty we wouldn't have the degree of contention we do. With virtually no exceptions, scientists look at what has gone before with a major presumption: "There is no God, therefore, what really happened?" That presumption is what taints modern science and it always will.

So you suggest that scientists should consider a supernatural element when forming theories, even though science by definition only deals with the natural world?

[Sabertooth]

So you suggest that scientists should consider a supernatural element when forming theories, even though science by definition only deals with the natural world?

This is a fair and qualified definition of science. The problem lies with scientists who extrapolate beyond the materially observable. And they do it all the time.

Far too many scientists view "truth" and "scientific truth" as synonymous. When they do, science and "scientific truth" are corrupted.

This serves no one.

Is it unreasonable to expect scientists to choose their words carefully enough so that they avoid implying conclusions that science is, by definition, not equipped to address?