I agree, Mary, and I too feel that there are two concurrent concepts confusing the conversation ( <<<<------How's THAT for alliteration?!!!

...and I think I'm to blame. I guess to put it simply, I was thinking of the way science is used practically, not scientific theory. Science is used in practical application -- applied sciences? -- and even though much of that practical application holds up, some of it goes by the wayside -- is proven wrong -- with subsequent data.

Think of medicine. Nobody would claim that the medicine that came in the middle of last century was not based on science, yet, due to changes in new data, we now find that earlier practices, though well-meaning and based on the best that we had were wrong. We don't maintain those practical applications. We discard them.

Further confusing the issue is the mass quantities of "junk science" clouding the atmosphere of lay science conversation.

Add to that the confusion of many who think they know what they know, but don't actually. For instance, I don't argue that many (I'd maybe even concede -- a majority) of those who believe in creation don't know how to capably describe their belief or make their case intelligently. But I find the same level of ignorance among those who argue the practical details of evolution. They are cut more slack (not subject to the same derogatory language with which the creationists are described ) in the debate though, because, wrong as they are in the details of evolution, they are at least on the "right" side of the debate.

Also, when I am talking about the "goal posts", I'm merely suggesting that the data is ever changing and so the conclusions and practical applications change as well. Don's use of the "goal post" is to say that the goal of science has never changed.