Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[Love]

Science is about generating explanations, not "ultimate truths" (and makes no claims to the contrary).

Well, I think Richard Dawkins would vehemently disagree with you. He is adamant that science leads to truth. I would point you to some YouTube videos in which he makes this very clear. Unfortunately, however, this now seems to be impossible since I have been splapped by the moderators for including copyrighted material.

I read this as meaning that the whole point of the scientific method is investigation and testing; the point at which we assume that we have the answer totally down is the point at which we are no longer doing science.

Firstly, I am not a proponent of the "Intelligent Design" movement. I am not a creationist and I accept the "Big Bang" theory as the leading cosmological explanation for the origin of the universe.

I do not deny that the scientific method is about postulation, formulating hypotheses, making predictions, performing experiments and disproving theories. That is not the point I am trying to make.

As I am sure you're aware, the whole scientific enterprise is ultimately governed by the scientific peer review process. An example: a student quantum physicist demonstrates that he or she has discovered physical evidence that completely eliminates the possibility of wave function collapse (which is a fundamental postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics), and has the potential to completely invalidate the Copenhagen interpretation. At the very bottom line least, he or she needs to have peer reviewed scientific publications in order for the aforementioned discovery to be accepted as valid. Therefore, we'll assume that the student quantum physicist has submitted his or her paper for peer review. Even if the content presented in the paper(s) is 100% accurate and valid (in terms of satisfying the perquisites required by the scientific method), there is a distinct possibility that the academic who is reviewing the document will reject the idea that the evidence presented eliminates the possibility of wave function collapse. Does this mean that the evidence presented is invalid? Of course not. It is simply an example whereby the perceived credibility of the idea presented by the student is entirely dependent on the reviewer's subjective interpretation of the evidence, thereby invalidating the proposition that science is all about "investigation and testing".