In the scientific method the evidence is more important than finding the truth. Finding the truth is not important to science only observing and documenting evidence is.
No. Finding the evidence is important because it makes our conclusions more likely to be the truth, less likely to be false. That's what the collection of the evidence is
for.
Since there is no truth to be found inside of science ...
There is probably lots.
But many I'm sure feel that all the evidence compels one to determine that it should be considered as truth.
Provisionally considered as truth, yes.
Can and does a scientific evolutionary believing person actually want the truth?
Of course. This is why we're interested in evidence and creationists are more interested in vacuous rhetoric with no connection to reality.
I agree that theories should be improved and evidnece collected. But not when the theory has limitless bounds continuing to add and take away to the point were a common man can not achieve the ability to comprehind it. A real good theory I propose is the origin of life is so easy to understand that a common man unknowable of science can achieve it. People are smart and chose to ignore that ability.
Or that it doesnt not supply God with direct creation ability. But it out right denies the use of predicting and estimate work is heavily involved when evolution is concerned.
If that was written in a better approximation to English, so that it was meaningful, it would probably be untrue.
So the main question is for anyone and anybody.
Is learning the truth of origin more important?
Or is learning and predicting by the evidence collected more important?
But this is a mere category error.
One approaches the truth by looking at the evidence. You might as well ask: "What's more important to you, walking or putting one foot in front of the other?"
That's how one walks.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
