The Scientific Method

The methods of science are somewhat unique, and a stark contrast to those used as a foundation by religion.

Religious beliefs generally focus around some agreed framework. Christian belief is controlled by whatever translation and version their sect favours at any point in time. They seek guidance from this framework when living their lives and, most important in this discussion, when searching for evidence of our creation. The framework is there, and neither hell nor high water will change their minds. In fact often external sources of evidence are discounted purely because they do not agree with this framework.

In science an idea, belief or theory is there to be challenged. Scientists do not worship what is 'known', but challenge it. Each challenge (or experiment), assuming the experiment does not fail, either discredit the theory, or let it live to fight another challenge. Discredited theories are either discarded as nonsense, or modified in some way so that they now pass this latest challenge (and, essentially, all previous challenges). A theory can never be proved.

Hopefully this will go some way to discredit those who seem to think that scientists are almost fanatically religious about their theories, a comment made most often about evolution. Evolution in its current state has passed every single challenge thrown at it. It has survived an intense gauntlet for decade after decade. Although we can never know with 100% certainty it is correct, the fact it has survived the gauntlet thus far gives us a great deal of confidence in its correctness. In contrast many contenders, notably Lamarckism, have been destroyed by a challenge along the way, and join the increasingly huge library of failed theories in the history books. If you could show (rigorously) that there was a theory that explained the diversity of life in a different way you would not be shunned from the scientific community as many religious fanatics claim. You would be held up as a hero.