What is Science? Part 2

There is another website that I like to go to get "real people" answers to questions...

The question I asked this time was:

Can the "Theory of Evolution" be proven scientifically? Meaning can I use the Scientific Method to prove its validity? Or is there another way?

As usual the subtle emphasis in my question was missed, but a good point was raised by one of the people who "answered" my question. His response was:

No scientific Theory can be proved - it can only be disproved. That is in the nature of science: a Theory is simply a Hypothesis that has satisfied many tests and defeated may attempts at disproof. However, a theory can be tested - and frequently is. The theory could very easily be *disproved* - by finding human bones in the same strata as dinosaur bones, for example. Or any other mixture of remains from what are regarded as widely differing times. You can also see evolution in action - for example, in the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The large the species you want to see evolution in, the longer it will take, because it seems to take a few hundred generations for evolution to show up clearly. In bacteria, that may be only months; in mammals that is usually the better part of a century.


Now leaving beside the fact that we have found dino bones intermixed with human bones in the same strata, that is not the point that jumped out at me... And while I also love the "generic scientist love" of equivicating us with simple celled organisms, I do not want to discuss that today. What I want to point out is that first line... No scientific theory can be proved - it can only be disproved.

Finally, someone in the other camp who gets "it"... Science is the pursuit of knowledge, yes, but how do we obtain that knowledge? Through the finding of limitations... Science measures to the point of failure, not success. If you measured a pencil do you stop where it begins, or measures till it ends? So now that we got "it"... Let me pose another question:

If we have no way of disproving something, because of a lack of a fitting test (or Process) should science be sticking it nose in that business? In other words, if it would be impossible for Science to conduct a test, should it be pursuing that ground?

Okay, I know how that sounded, it sounded like I am against the advancement of knowledge, but I promise I am not... And anyone who knows me, knows that I love to learn... (I am even getting better at basketball !) That point that I am making is this, there is no test to determine what happened at the beginning of time, there is no way to honestly conduct these multi-million year evolutionary tests, but yet science keeps touting themselves (not to mention cramming it down our throats) as hear ya go... Plus, they make no room for any other "theories"... And my question to that is:

If there are no other viable theories, why is it not a law?

And at this point the conversations usually shut down... I find people do not like to have their religious beliefs shaken... Especially evolutionists... They are the zanyist religious zealots of them all... The only difference between them and most other religious fanatics are that they are in control of the education system, and in my opinion that is more deadly than any suicide bomber... So, yes, I would be all for getting religion out of our schools, but we should start with evolution first...