How strong can a concept be, if the best way to prove the concept is to disqualify all other concepts?
How great is the human, who sees the flaws in the thoughts of all other humans, but offers no positive concept for fear of being seen as flawed as well?
Those, who believe that rational thought cannot include the concept of one absolute Sovereign, Who is GOD/Creator, then that individual has declared himself or herself to be god, knowing all things that allegedly can be known, dismissing all concepts than cannot be proven through human means.
As a result, science is no longer scientific. Put another way, science arguably falsifies itself, when the Self of Science claims to be self-contained as to the quantifying and codifying of all knowledge that can be known.
Sir Karl Raimund Popper posited this theory. “PS1->TT1->EE1->PS2 (or an initial problem situation leads to initial tentative theory, which in turn leads to more and more interesting problems) For Popper, it is in the interplay between the tentative theories (conjectures) and error elimination (refutation) that scientific knowledge advances toward greater and greater problems; in a process very much akin to the interplay between genetic variation and natural selection.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
For Popper and theorists of his caliber, the study of science is founded upon the concept, “Some things simply do not lend themselves to being shown to be false, and therefore are not falsifiable.”
However, this is a truth-claim that arguably places adherents to evolutionist dogma in jeopardy of the title, “superioritists,” who are themselves falsifiable by virtue of the fact that they cannot possess the omniscience necessary to prove such a claim.
What is that truth-claim? That truth-claim is that verification or falsification can all be rendered, using tools presently-known to exist in the physical realm on Planet Earth.
Science, without admitted faith, has become a faith in the powers of the mind as supreme. Hence, a new religion has been established in Science as exclusive knowledge.
Has abiogenesis been proved “beyond reasonable doubt?” Abiogenesis must be accepted (aka Faith, based on an as-yet-unproved concept) as a framework of operation for evolution to have any plausibility.
The precarious aspect of this quasi-scientific religion in the creation of the theory of Neanderthal Man, based on spurious evidence, only to be soundly falsified at a later date.
Admission of minimalist evidence and the scientist’s own personal biases, plus the confession that “I hope that such and such is true, but we are a long way from proof” could reduce the amount of shame borne, when new evidence surfaces that shows truth has always existed in a totally-new direction. (To some degree most scientists will admit the weaknesses in the initial stages of their theories.)
Such a scientific approach could be more gallantly embraced as The Matching Clues Approach, which more and more is revealed of the grand picture every time two pieces of the puzzle match.
Having watched small children be completely enthralled by this game over the past few years, it would seem more genuine to admit in the early stages, “Folks, we are still guessing here, but it seems to reveal that the truth in this case is X. As the picture grows larger and clearer, even to the point that it seems like there is no other explanation but Divine Creation. Then, we will admit this.”
Now, THAT would be honest. Nothing would have to be falsified.
We could positively admit that our knowledge is growing.
To be consistent, we must admit that faith without thought is irrational.
However, thought that does not admit to faith (aka acceptance of the as-yet-unproved or even unprovable) is both irrational and arguably, not very scientific.
