Scientists use the scientific method. That is generically know as 'science.' In the philosophy of science, there is Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism.
Observations are made, then inferences are made in the form of a working hypothesis. Using ingenuity, experiments are devised to rigorously test the hypothesis, since it is necessarily vulnerable to falsifiability. Falsifiability is actually the strength of the scientific method. Those theories and hypotheses that cannot be falsified, and are only ever verified become the accepted explanation, tentatively, since a better or more precise explanation may possibly become available in time with ongoing research into the natural world.
Science has no way of demonstrating, or of disproving the existence of God, the soul, angels or any 'spiritual' entity or such concept's actual existence, (and so one must remain technically agnostic.) These claims for supernatural entities and miracles, are necessarily accorded, by adherents, a special preserve outside empirical experience, which is the basis for all other substantive evidence about reality. The supernatural is a seductive idea for hundreds of millions of people today. They are fooled, superstitious, credulous. Their basis for claiming it true resides in mere faith. This is gullibility.
On this reading of scientific methodology, there are no 'mysteries,' ever beyond the province of empirical testable evidence. We most likely will never be able to develop the technology to conclusively know if the multiverse theory in cosmology is true or not, because of physical and time limitations which we exist within, and indeed require for very existence itself to obtain. But we can confidently aver that everything has a naturalistic explanation. It could be known. And sad that we probably can't empirically demonstrate that. Oh, well. Maybe cosmologists and particle physicists might work it out to the point of consensus on the matter. Don't trivialise science or scientists anymore. You may require medical science to save your life. I would hope not.
The as yet unknown nevertheless doesn't provide for or remain the preserve of God, the grasping god of the gaps argument. This god ever retreats into ever smaller pockets of scientific ignorance until he is ferreted out of there as well as everywhere else he has had to hastily vacate. Why does he have to try to hide from our investigations into reality, for a character so austere and Almighty? Rather capricious too. I guess that comes from being an only child. He gets into a little tanty. Look out. Just like Joseph Stalin really. And he sure can be callous and vengeful. A cosmic Brat. Loves blood sacrifice and utter obedience, especially concerning sex.
Science, has only ever been able to confirm Darwinian theory. Science has not 'proved man was once an unintelligent ape-like beast.' Modern 'man' is modern Homo sapiens. Before that, our ancestors were arcane Homo sapiens. Before that there were very gradual intermediate stages of hominid over a lineage of a probable 700 thousands of generations, possibly far more than that, from an 'ape like' or earlier primate common ancestor with the modern chimpanzee and the bonobo. The earlier the ancestors, the younger they would mature into adults. We have a long gestation period and time to puberty and ability to parent. We have evolved a far bigger brain. This is why giving birth is such a labour for a mother to go through, plus her lower back has been forced to modify for walking upright. The pelvis is now tilted.
Our closest cousins are the chimpanzee and the bonobo, with whom we share a common ancestor 5.3 million years ago. That ancestor would have looked rather like a modern chimp and a bonobo. Our ancestors were the ones who figuratively speaking only, 'said goodbye' and emerged out of the African forest into the savanna and beyond over the countless generations, thus splitting off from those that remained in the forest, to become a separate species.
Selection pressure and sexual selection ensured our species evolved the attributes to walk upright permanently, develop cognition and language and culture, including inventing religion.
Throw your creationist books in the trash. They are nothing to do with science. They are apologetics. They are poisonous. Utterly impoverished and delusional. Creationism and Christianity is all self referring, inward looking, bent on self verification, "The Bible because, the Bible."
Science, reason and scholarship are outward looking, are genuinely investigative. Science works.
Wherever else there is life in this super Vast universe of 100 billion galaxies each having on average 100 billion stars, it will be the result of evolution by natural selection, Darwinism, upon naturally reactive chemistry created in a supernova event by atomic fusion. Ejecta from this exploding star got caught in orbit around a neighbouring star to form a planet friendly to life, whence naturally reactive chemistry eventuated in the first self replicating macro molecule, life. How stupefyingly awesome and beautiful. And all those fascinating species striving to make a living, survive and reproduce.
I encourage you to read this through closely,
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism
Then this,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor
Then start reading Richard Dawkins.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
