Is Science the Search for Objective Truth in an Objective Reality

No dark matter is not supernatural. It is unknown. There is an important difference.The unknown is exactly that. As yet unexplained physical phenomenon for which there is no reason to think that a scientific answer cannot be found (in the case of dark matter either the nature of the matter in question or a proper physical refutation of it's existence at all)Supernatural phenomemnon are those that supposedly CANNOT by their very nature be investigated scientifically for whatever reason (I have never heard anyone give a valid reason).
In my view any phenomenon that has an effect on the physical world whether it be supernatural creators, ghosts, astrological prediction or whatever else can be studied scientifically even if the results lead to as yet unknown branches of science (unlikely but possible I suppose)

Evolution by natural selection is considered one of the most accomplished, elegant and far reaching scientific theories ever formulated.Testable predictions have been made but the success of the theory is based far more on it's explanatory powers and the deep understanding that these provide.In your opinion is this theory considered so successful because it allows us to make ever more accurate predictions or because we feel that it has given us deep insight into a fundamental truth of nature and our own origins?In your opinion is evolution by natural selection a simulation/model or an objective scientific and historical truth?

Well that very much depends on what you think the aims of science are and therefore what is considered science "working". If it is merely to derive laws that consistently predict physical phenomenon then it sounds like we would both agree that consistency of "reality" objective or otherwise is all that is required. But is the ultimate aim of science prediction and control? See post above in response to Crashfrog regarding natural selection as an example of a theory that has limited useful predictive power but which is valued greatly for the insight it provideds.If the aim of science is to provide a deeper understanding of nature then the aims of science, and therefore I would argue it's methods, would be very different if a non objective reality were to be assumed.
The ultimate questions of science would not ralate to the origin of life, the universe, matter etc. as they do now. Instead the ultimate questions of science would relate to the nature of the consciousness in whose subjective grasp we exist.Don't get me wrong - I am not claiming that we can scientifically know whether this is the case or not. Or even that it matters from a purely technological advancement point of view.
I am just saying that implicit in the aims and methods of science is an assumption that we are operating in an objective reality and that this implicit assumption is necessary for science to operate as we understand it.I would argue it as a sort of "axiom of science" if you like. An embedded assumption that there is an objective reality and that this is necessary for the nature of scientific investigation as we know it to follow.So is science the search for objective truth in an objective reality?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well it is philosophy of science.As much of this forum is dedictaed to debating what is, and what is not, science it seemed a worthwhile topic and one that I am interested in knowing the views of others on.

You seem to use the term "mutually exclusive" a lot when it is not necessarily warranted.There is a whole branch of philosophy dedicated to the exact nature of scientific investigation. It is called the philosophy of science.I would disagree fundamentally with your division of science and philosophy but even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that you are correct in asserting - This in no way results in the conclusion that the nature of scientific investigation can not be considered philosophically.

The question - What is science?
Can be considered philosophically in the same way that the question
What is art? can be considered philosophically.The nature of the subject in question is irrelevent to the philosophical questions that relate to the nature and meaning of the human pursuit under consideration.The very question as to whether science (or any other endevour) is A Priori or A Posteriori (or a combination of the two) is a philosophical one.
Whatever the resulting conclusion of this philosophical investigation may beThere is nothing mutually exclusive about it.If not philosophy what do you consider the question -What is the nature of scientific investigation?to be?"Do we discover or invent mathematics"? - Is a philosphical question regardless of the answer. But the answer will suggest mathematics to have an A Priori or A Posteriori nature depending which point of view is taken.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No art is not philosophy. I never said it was.......
Nor is science.
We can both agree on that (hopefully)However questions relating to the human pursuits that we call art and science and the nature of these endevours are philosophical questions REGARDLESS of the conclusions we come to about the nature of these pursuits.This thread is about the nature of science. The philosophy of science if you like.No matter how fancilly you word your responses simply stating that science is not philosophy and that there can be no philosophy of science because of this is just daft.

I see you have been banned for your overly aggressive rants elsewhere anyway.Oh well.