If we even think there is a possibility that the supernatural exists, yet though we can’t test it or prove it by traditional scientific methods, should we not go forward to establish the body of evidence for it anyway?
For if we insist on observable and measurable proof of God’s existence and, by doing so, conveniently eliminate God as a possible explanation for physical realities, then science regresses to a grand balancing act on the pronounced distant edge of a flat earth’s mysterious ocean.
Science has no avenue to disprove the existence of God, try as it might. It does have ample opportunity to prove his existence, all depending on how you want to define acceptable scientific method and acceptable uncertainty – and therein lies the problem.
There are errors and/or uncertainties in all scientific observations, experiments, results and conclusions. As a result, science has yielded conclusions that were flat out wrong at times and overturned by new information again and again. That’s good – it is supposed to work that way; new information should supplant any prior less accurate data. But often conflicting conclusions occur in the same time frame.
A great example of the uncertainties that cause scientific research to contradict itself repeatedly is nutrition and disease research. One case in point is the egg. Some scientists say eating eggs are good for you; others say they increase the risk of disease. And then there is meat, dairy, wheat, tofu – some say it’s all good, some say not. Such are the circles of claims for a host of other research involving foods, nutrition, health, disease treatment, evolution, creationism, and the list goes on.
Yet each conclusion is supposedly based on valid, controlled experiments performed with careful scientific methods (we know some are bogus, but many are not). So why all the differing reports then? It’s because of the errors, biases and/or experimental uncertainties that exist in all scientific observations, research, experiments, data, reports and conclusions. So a lot of the conclusions are subjective or at least inaccurate.
There is much more uncertainty in scientific conclusions than people think, and that’s rarely discussed. Evolution research is not immune to this. That’s why we should question (or laugh) whenever it is stated as a fact that humans evolved from non-humans. Such evolution has not been proven, cannot be proven, and therefore there is no need to disprove it.