[Skybird]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

Time and time again, it's "Science will uncover the Ultimate Truth... later."

Not true with regard to scientists knowing what they are doing: sciences is about varifying or falsifying theories by a method of testing and observation.

More technically, a theory usually means "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena", "a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation", " an unproved assumption", "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another" (mirriam webster online dictionary, choosing the scientific relevant aspects only).

And the National Academy of Sciences says in it's forword to "Science and Creationism" :

"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these
words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence.
Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation,
experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested
hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific

theories we have."

they also define at the same location:

"Fact:

In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is

accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be
modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis:

A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the

deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect,
the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law:

A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science.

In the quest for understanding, science involves a great deal of careful observation that eventually produces

an elaborate written description of the natural world. Scientists communicate their findings and conclusions to
other scientists through publications, talks at conferences, hallway conversations, and many other means. Other
scientists then test those ideas and build on preexisting work. In this way, the accuracy and sophistication of
descriptions of the natural world tend to increase with time, as subsequent generations of scientists correct and
extend the work done by their predecessors.
Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena.
Scientists never can be sure that a given explanation is complete and final. Some of the hypotheses advanced by
scientists turn out to be incorrect when tested by further observations or experiments. Yet many scientific

explanations have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that they are held with great confidence."

Science searches progress by trial and error. It does not hope to find the penultimate truth, and it cannot. Some foolish scientists nevertheless maybe fall for that temptation, though. but they miss the above principles then.

The unfortunate aspect of admitting "belief" is that one is immediatly branded as "religious" and communications with that person are filtered through a "religion colored glass." This sad because it automatically presupposes that the "religious" persons mind is closed to thinking "out of the box" and is shut to anything that doesn't fit with their dogma.

You are illogical here. Religion is believing, science is, trial and error, observation and conclsuion. Religion is belief indeed. you have made a choice, you say you belief in an intelligent creator. But you do not want to be hold responsible for the choice you made..?. By your choice, you already have filtered out what is possible in explanation and what not: you must not know anymore, and must not explain accoprding to standards of reason or science or logic - for you have choosen to believe. Believing and reason do not go well together. In fact, they are mutually exclusive.

For myself, the Cross and the Resurrection are far better bets than any Buddhist pragmatism, New Age mysticism or flawed human explainations. Works for me.

Works for you? I fear you need to wait until you are dead to see if it works for you, or not. That way, you can almost skip your life, which may explain christians' obessive orientation towards death. Question then is, in your thinking: why have I been created, then? Just in order to die when asking too many question about poison arrows? That must be any god's queer sense of humour - which after all eventually may prove the existence of god in fact, finally (at least when you have made a decision to believe.)

P.S. You also mentioned free will. That is paradox, because when you choose to believe, you do not act by free will anymore: you submit,and you make your decisions in the basis of your dogma formed by what you believe. A free will not to act by free will anymore?