Math has proofs. Science does not. The scientific method is used to rule out or discredit false theories, steering further research along the most likely path. At no point does it prove any theory correct.I think it's pretty evident by now that you're just parroting things you read on other sites, rather than making any real effort to understand how they actually work.
Obama is the best president we have so far this term. The democratic process produces the finest candidates and the most effective representatives of any system in the world. All our politicians are perfected by the majority process and are admired and respected because each one has the majority approval.Thus demonstrating that you really don't understand how scientific methodology is actually used. All you clearly care about is twisting it around to a 'theory' that would never be proposed in the first place by anyone who actually understood it, creating a strawman which you can then use to 'discredit' the use of scientific methodology.
First off, scientific methodology starts with an observation about something. Then a person comes up with a way to explain the observation, and does tests to see if their explanation holds up. If it does, then other people take a crack at it. Assuming nobody finds any flaws, it becomes a theory (though it's still tested as we refine our knowledge).
Compare this to your 'theory'. I can spot two fatal flaws in it without even trying. First off, you did not base it on an actual observation of reality, which is obvious to anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to the U.S. political system. Second, you did not test it to see how well it conformed to reality. And so, unsurprisingly, it has about as much resilience as wet tissue paper when subjected to analysis.
By contrast, a good scientific theory is extremely resilient. While it isn't ever 'proven', beyond any doubt, the more tests that are done on it, the more likely it is to be true. And that's what we mean when we say a scientific theory is proven - it's been tested and never found wanting, therefore its validity is demonstrated. It is effectively proven true, certainly well enough to work with.
It's like the value of pi. People have calculated it to trillions of digits, yet there's always more to discover. Nonetheless, we can use what we've already discovered with an extremely high confidence that it'll be correct enough for everyday purposes (even though it won't ever be perfectly correct). The same goes for scientific theories - they've been sufficiently tested that we can use them confidently, but there's always room to learn more about them, even to (possibly) falsify them.
A good sermon on your belief system. I was in (physical properties) R&D for 20 years in product development and QC.
I am fully aware that the process of science is unable to confirm any instance of supernatural intervention. The scriptures document this using scientists in the example.
Jesus turns water into wine. A scientist on the scene examines the fluid and declares it the best wine he has tasted. As a work of fiction, I don't see the point to the story. As a work of nonfiction, it doesn't have to have one, because it is simply documenting what happened.
But, if one is assuming non-fiction, then it tells us science is unable to accurately determine historical events if there is supernatural intervention. The "scientist" on the scene is not in error in his analysis, and should be relieved of his job as the food scientist of the day. Just as scientists today are not wrong about the age of the earth. As this story shows us, science is not likely to be fully correct if there is any supernatural intervention.