"Yes, science has a 'bottom line', but it is that more data & evidence is always useful and must be tested & integrated before being provisionally accepted."


Perhaps it is worthwhile to point out that on the issues that pete is talking about, Creation, 500 foot wooden boats, supernatural wild animal wrangling, there were "theories" that were generally accepted which were replaced as scientific evidence was discovered. It is my understanding that much of the science and philosophy done in the relatively recent past up to the beginning of the 20th century was to that end.

Very intelligent religious people, people much smarter than Ken Ham and that science teacher from Chicago, looked at the evidence and found that the evidence backed up Darwin and the other "deep time" supporters.