as you have said - the basis of science is testing all available evidence and drawing a conclusion from the same. if new evidence comes about - test it and either uphold the existing conclusion or rubbish it by defining a new conclusion. this process goes on ad infinitum. science as a concept does not change or should not change .. the methods of collecting this evidence, the methods of testing the said evidence and the methods of drawing conclusions from the said evidence can improve based on the technology in place. Science is not technology!

Methods of testing and drawing conclusion can improve but they all still rely on the senses to note the improvement or degeneration. The senses, i.e. touch, smell, taste, sight, hearing which are constant.

Hence if it can be shown that if one or all of our senses e.g. of hearing is not as sharp as it was earlier (because we damaged it with loud throbbing sound or music) then whatever test and conclusion that relied upon hearing it will be degenerate. Hence it is not wise to rubbish previously held conclusions when we get new conclusions. Actually, most if not all our senses are damaged in one way or another so we can only safely see that previous conclusions are the better conclusions. Current conclusions are flawed.

Indeed science is not technology.

So God putting the saviour of the world in the Womb of a 12 year old girl is is the example we should all follow instead!

I mean she was a whole 3 years older, I mean she was a whole double digit age of 12, A 12 year old "woman" was definitely mature enough... Wow!

I empathise with @guru267, because no one can bear to see one's mother, or one's belief, being torn down. No one can bear it.

So, it is churlish:
- to claim my religion is greater than Islam
- as it is to justify death for apostasy, or honor killings
- or justify terrorism & collateral damage in expanding a country's border

So easy for us all to be hypocritical. Irrespective of belief, don't all human beings struggle with these deadly ills?

We have a body of knowledge that we have been accumulating i.e. we have stuff that we know and we know we know and in reality we actually know them. there are things that we think we know but we really don't know, there are things we know that we don't know and there are things we don't know that we don't know.


how do we know? knowing is being aware of through observation, inquiry, or information. We observe by our senses. For example - people had observed that the atom was the smallest and indivisible component of matter. in 1897 someone observed that the atom was not the smallest piece of matter someone concluded that the smallest piece of matter was actually the electron. this was based on finer instruments. in 1917 a dude got the Nobel prize for 'curing cancer' due to an observation but future observations based on finer tools and methods proved him wrong. We are slowly building the body of knowledge (known knowns that we really know). There are assumptions or incorrect approximations that result in things we think are known but are really unknown but given time we are moving stuff from the known unknowns into the things we think we know but we don't and later into the things we know that we know and we really know. Those things that we think we know but are unknown are not useless since they enable us remove the chaff from the list of possible explanations. For example – when Dalton stated that the atom was the smallest indivisible aspect of matter it removed marbles, oranges or even needles from the list of ‘smallest indivisible’ parts of matter. We have moved from where the ancients were i.e. we do not rely on senses alone to make assertions - we have technology i.e. contraptions built by us to aid us do stuff better. See better, hear better, feel better, taste better, smell better. our sight for example is used to detect 'existence' of stuff by seeing. but we have developed better ways of observing other than sight e.g. the microscopes and telescopes and all other scopes. We all agree that we know that we think we know what causes Malaria. We know that it’s not a curse or a demon or dirty water. We think it’s plasmodium and toxins released by that organism we could be wrong since our observations may improve in future HOWEVER we should not result to drawing conclusions like the people who did not have instruments of observations like these that we have.
ancients observed that the sun would appear in the east and disappear in the west. they drew conclusion that the sun went around the earth as they did not observe any movement on the part of the earth that they were standing on. with finer instruments we were able to postulate and prove that the conclusions made by the ancients were incorrect. we postulate conclusions based on information that we have at hand and we prove these conclusions later. The Higgs boson is one of these postulations that was made and a couple of years later was proved by observation to exist. Postulation of conclusions should be based on what information we have now not what was available millennia ago.