I was obviously not attempting to discredit science - that’s an entirely different thing from injecting a needed cautionary note into a discussion that has several times attempted to invoke science as an unassailable defense against God and His work in creation.
I think I was pretty clear in my post back at 305 about that.
As to your comment that a biologist who is a supporter of creationism/ID just doesn’t compute: Why do you believe the two are incompatible?
I think I was pretty clear in my post back at 305 about that.
As to your comment that a biologist who is a supporter of creationism/ID just doesn’t compute: Why do you believe the two are incompatible?
I don't think you have been clear at all. My defense of science didn't pop out of a blue sky. It was a response to claims like yours (but less politely stated) that science is fraud.
I would say that anyone who claims that fraud is the dominant mode of science has not done any original research. It is, of course, possible to lie about observations and findings, but it's a rubber check, and it will eventually bounce.
You have discussed nothing of substance. Your posts have centered on allegations of personal failings of individuals. You haven't specified any particular incident in which a significant finding was falsified.
Science does not deal with God. It can, however, deal with claims made about the physical world. It can determine, for example, that the earth does move and that the sun does not travel around it. This may or may be contrary to religion, but it is contrary to longstanding teachings of churches.
Science cannot prove that there was never a global flood, but it can determine that the available evidence is inconsistent with anything like that. Science cannot prove common descent, but it can demonstrate that arguments against it, so far, are rubbish.
If you have taken the courses you claim to have taken, you already know these things. If you have something of substance to add to the discussion, feel free.