Defining Science is a philosophical issue. The approach to defining science is called an external philosophy of science. Science, itself the datum, is defined as an applied general philosophy, not science itself. It is an attempt to understand reality, knowing logic, and logical structure.
At least you understand that scientific facts do not equate to truth.
Science itself makes no pretense of being ontologically "true" -- science doesn't even know what "true" is. Sure, science can define a "fact" as "confirmed observation", but makes no claims that such "facts" are "true". For all such affirmations, you must turn to your religion or philosophy, not science. Science's one great claim, "ontological claim", if you wish is this: it works. If that's not enough for you, then seek your answers elsewhere.
With your devotion to science and seeming resentment for theological ideas, I must ask if you believe truth exists. For example, when you say, "For all such affirmations, you must turn to your religion or philosophy, not science", is this to say truth does not exist? Is truth important if it does exist?
And finally, my "trick" question, as you describe it, asks of all of this proselytizing of Darwinian evolution, you refuse to answer if you know it is true. You should have the courage of your literary convictions. You explication ad nauseum regarding Darwinism, but then, when asked, you refuse to answer if it is true or not. You refuse to logically and rationally defend your acclamations of Darwinism,....just that you make declarations, and others are supposed to believe. That is not an argument for your position. Your declaration that answers assertion are false, without epistemically defending why. My "trick" question was as simple as I could make it for you. You simply created a trap for yourself. Yes, no, or I do not know. I tried to make it simple for you...it was a multiple choice answer. I cannot make it more simple than that.
You say no scientist would make a claim of truth. If that is so, why the angered dogmatism? It seems to say science does not have an exclusive claim on truth and therefore knowledge. In fact you say it has no at all on truth. So based on your statement does history, theology, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, or any adductive science, have just as valid a claim on truth and knowledge as science?
I won't go further. I will leave you with these simple questions to pontificate. I earnestly await your reply. Thank you.
Of course you did, and now deny it?
I'm starting to "get" that you are highly confused & disoriented.
So, let me see if I can cut through the clutter in your mind: science is a model of reality, not reality itself.
Though it can be falsified, the scientific model is never "true", only "confirmed" or "observed".
If you were expecting "truth" from science, you're asking more than it was intended to deliver.
What science intends to deliver is: a model which works.
Is that not clear & simple enough for you?
Texas Songwriter: "I asked you about, essentially, how you reconcile Darwinian evolution with Naturalism.. But you evade."
That's not what you asked, and I "evaded" nothing, FRiend.
The answer is: Darwin's theory of evolution (descent with modifications, natural selection) is the very essence of methodological naturalism.
So, can you cite anything about basic evolution theory which is not methodologically natural?
Texas Songwriter: "Defining Science is a philosophical issue.
The approach to defining science is called an external philosophy of science."
The most important point for you to remember about science is: you, personally do not get to define it.
Scientists will define what it is, or is not, not anti-scientists.
Scientists define it with terms like "methodological naturalism" based on assumptions such as "uniformitarianism" and using a "scientific method" which they will determine, not you.
So you don't get to declare their methods "unscientific".
Of course, if scientists become corrupt or misbehave (i.e., "global warming") that's a different matter.
But in that case, you will always find some scientists who can make the opposing case, which you are free to agree with, or reject.
Texas Songwriter: "With your devotion to science and seeming resentment for theological ideas, I must ask if you believe truth exists."
Sorry, but your accusation of "resentment" is a total fantasy.
Of course truth exists, but not within science, only in other schools of learning -- i.e., religion, theology, philosophy, metaphysics, spirituality, etc.
Such truth is outside the realm and scope of science.
Texas Songwriter: "...is this to say truth does not exist?
Is truth important if it does exist?"
I can't think of anything in human affairs which is more important, can you?
Texas Songwriter: "And finally, my "trick" question, as you describe it, asks of all of this proselytizing of Darwinian evolution, you refuse to answer if you know it is true."
Why do you suppose that's even a valid question?
I gave you the obvious and correct answer: the facts as we know them fit, support and confirm the theory of evolution, so it works.
That's as good as it ever gets in science.
On a higher spiritual level, I believe what most Christian denominations teach, something called "theistic evolutionism", meaning that whatever theories science may advance about evolution of the Universe & life, it was intended, designed and executed by God, from the beginning.
That is the truth, as I see it.
Texas Songwriter: "...when asked, you refuse to answer if it is true or not.
You refuse to logically and rationally defend your acclamations of Darwinism..."
You know that's baloney, and you should be ashamed of it.
Why do you say such stuff?
It's simply not honest, FRiend.
Texas Songwriter: "Your declaration that answers assertion are false, without epistemically defending why."
And here you are just blathering nonsense.
Come on, take a deep breath, get a grip on yourself.
Texas Songwriter: "So based on your statement does history, theology, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, or any adductive science, have just as valid a claim on truth and knowledge as science?"
Do you not yet "get" the idea that science itself formally makes no claims at all on "truth"?
Science literally hands the whole subject over to whichever school of learning wishes to claim it.
Science won't touch it, and for obvious reasons, among them that science can't even define it, much less observe or confirm it.
So science does not require you to "believe it" much less "believe in it", only that whatsoever you do believe, you don't call "science", unless it truly is.
What I personally believe is that science is probably on the right track regarding such subjects as evolution and physics of the Universe, but that there is so much more unknown than known, that future discoveries could turn our present understandings upside down.
I also believe that God's Truth is something science can never touch, and ultimately more important than anything mere "methodological naturalism" can conceive.
Does that not answer your question?