"So your beef with science is that its theories change to accomodate new information? That's funny; I've always considered this a strength.
What method, devoid of induction, do you use to find your unchanging truth? Could you give me an example of a truth you've found using this method?"
No, I do not have a beef with science. I know what it is and what it isn't. I know what it can do and what it can't do. Changing to accommodate "new information" is fine. But if you have to do that then you have to give up claiming that the scientific method gives truth and you have to admit that it gives only opinion, theory and guesses, which is exactly what anyone who knows the philosophy of science will tell you.
There is no scientific methodology that gives truth. Science can only give us operational instructions for how to manipulate the physical world, to some extent. That's why I say it is operational and not cognitive.
I object to the Darwinists and Athiests who, while actually doing history and philosophy, claim to be doing science. They puff themselves up, claiming to be models of rationalism and careful thought, yet demonstrating that they don't understand or will not be honest about the irrationalism of the empiricism that grounds science. When called to accout for it, their defense is always the same, they scoff and mock but never do they engage the fundamental problems associated with human knowledge.