[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I rarely agree with either Coyoteman or allmendream, at least on the crevo issue, but I don't really think your use of their quotes is fair. What they said, about the methodology of science per se is correct. The nature of science is that it is constantly uncovering more data which forces our present body of knowledge to both expand and be refined. There is never a point at which one can claim something is absolutely "proven" in science because there is never a point where you will have obtained all knowledge there is to have about everything, everywhere. This has nothing to do with postmodernist moral relativism.

[Hank Kerchief]

“There is never a point at which one can claim something is absolutely “proven” in science because there is never a point where you will have obtained all knowledge there is to have about everything, everywhere. This has nothing to do with postmodernist moral relativism.”

It has everything to do with postmodernist anti-rationality, and you’ve bought it.

Here’s is your mistake. You do not have to know everything before you can know something. Are you still waiting for more evidence before you’ll be convinced heavier-than-air human flight is possible?

Good grief, man. Do I have know everything about everything in the universe to know what the composition of water is?

Hank