Atheo-evo-science

What exactly is science? This is the question posed over at Do-While Jones' place, where he posits a debate, then takes first one side and then the other. Jones derives the conclusion that science is not a Truth no matter what definition of science is being used. His definitions of science go like this:

(1)" If assigned to refute the proposition, I would calmly seek to establish the definition of science to be “knowledge obtained through the scientific method.” I would emphasize that the scientific method relies upon careful observation and repeatable experiments. Since the observations and results are independent of human bias, the knowledge obtained in such a manner is reliable. If I could establish that definition of science, then it would be a simple matter to show that neither the Theory of Evolution, nor Intelligent Design, nor Creation Science meet the definition of science, and therefore are not scientific." [emph in original]

(2)But, if assigned to the other side, I would do what evolutionists generally do. I would take a more theatrical approach based on history and current events. I would show pictures of famous scientists of the past (some of whom were theologians), and what they believed. I would talk about the generally accepted “scientific” belief that everything was made of water (proposed by Thales of Miletus around 600 B.C.). Then I would say that Empedocles of Agrigentum (450 B.C.) claimed there were actually four fundamental substances (fire, air, earth, and water). Plato believed the world was created by a godlike “demiurge.” I would show astrological charts from the middle ages, making the point that scientists believed that the sun and the moon weren’t the only heavenly bodies that influenced what happens on Earth. With example after example I would show that historically science has been nothing more than the opinions of men about the substance and operation of the natural world. [emph in original]

He concludes that neither definition produces Truth. And if that is so, then why is evolution not a discussable topic, and discussion of its weaknesses being fought by organizations like the AAAS?

Moreover, he says,

"The debate that evolutionists would like to win is, “The Theory of Evolution is scientific, but Intelligent Design and Creation Science are not.” They can’t win that argument with either of the definitions of science proposed so far. Evolutionists need a third definition of science that fits the Theory of Evolution, but not Intelligent Design and Creation Science. Their problem is that the definition they need is, “Science is an opinion (not necessarily supported by observation or experimentation) that does not involve any supernatural power.” In other words, “Science is atheism". [emph in original]

Coincidentally, that is exactly the position that PZ Meyers took in his interview (see previous posts). The fact that Atheism is not an empirically provable conjecture suggests strongly that "science is personal opinion" is the axiom at play within the Atheo-evolutionary community. And that the personal opinion of themselves is actually considered to be a Truth statement... just because.

Is evolution taught as fact, as a statement of Truth? I can't know what is taught in all schools, everywhere, all the time. If you know about your schools, kindly let me know. I do suspect that at the college level evolution cannot escape the religious undertow of the professor's personal bias.

Like Do-while, I am still awaiting empirical proof of the development of new organs, limbs, any features that have erupted (under documented scrutiny but without interference) that serve to increase the progeny to fill a niche more efficiently than the parental units. So if you know of such, let me know.