What is science?

Science may be a quest for truth, but it can never achieve absolute truth. Your definition, while on the right track reminds me of science taught in middle school. The "Scientific Method" is not so regimented nor is it sequential. Much of science is really about "What the hell is that" moments. I think engineers tend to take a view of science as "I want to do this, so let me experiment until I get there". It is very method driven. Science is not so mundane, it is more of an adventure at trying to figure out how the natural world operates and developing a concepual model of the 'truth'. It must be open to testing and open to everyone. One of the failures of ye-creationism is that there is an 'a priori' assumption that the truth is known. In fact some organizations state this clearly 'All science rightly interpreted must fit the biblical interpretation prescribed by our organization'. Real science imposes no such limitations. By sticking with the natural world, science can be harmonized (if you desire) with almost any philosophy or theology. Whenever someone asks me to define science I tell them it's more about exploring that which I do not, and may not ever, know.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

"God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomena."

---

JM: Of course, if this is true then everything is designed and we would have no reference for 'not designed'. That makes ID a tautology and quite useless as a scientific endeavor. When ID'ists such as Paul Nelson admit that ID is not scientific but belongs in a religion or theology class that should tell you that you're not up to speed on ID.CheersJoe Meert