We Could Be Wrong

So, let's say there is a God. A likely situation? In my opinion, no. In the opinion of others, very. But, as pretty much everyone will concede, a possible situation. Not one we can ever conclusively say is untrue. That's the frustrating beauty of all the theistic arguments. So, anyway.

Given: ∃ God

And therefore everything we know is wrong. Of course, maybe everything we know isn't wrong, and God is one of those Gods who sparked the big bang and evolution and pretty much left the world to function given physical principles and He did so with infinite lovingkindness. Possible. But I'm not talking about that situation. I'm talking about any situation where everything we know is wrong. God created the heavens and the earth. God created man pretty much as he is.

So, IF this is the case. What is science? Is it still taking all of these testables and, well, testing them? Would we still go about our merry way, finding out what we could via these methods, hoping that the consistency we've seen in this world holds up a little more? Or would we claim that the answers to these questions, even if we couldn't test them, are ultimately the scientific answers, because they are truth? Or would science just be dead/useless altogether?

Of course there's always the question of how we know there's a God. So we have to assume it was revealed to us in some awfully convincing but non-repeatable way. Like the whole booming voice from the heavens, mountains lifted, every person told what he or she is thinking, and then nothing. Heck, I'd be convinced. But it's non-repeatable. OK, now that we have that out of the way...

Is the first priority of science truth? I think it's pretty clearly not. It's just that we're very convinced we can find truth through a system that makes a lot of sense and has some pretty remarkable successes in the past.

On a less extreme note than the "science fails!" scenario, what about the several times scientists have gotten it wrong...such as with the ether. I mean, the ether wasn't a horrible hypothesis. It's not immediately intuitive that light should be the fulcrum of the universe. So, in their science classes they taught the ether. Should they not have? I think they should have. So we kind of tacitly consent to teach untruths as long as they're arrived at via this tried-and-usually-true methodology. Seems mildly messed up. I'll ride with it, but I do kind of feel we should be qualifying everything.

I guess that's what I'll concede to IDers. Not that evolution should be singled out as being flawed, hell no, it's one of the theories with the greatest ratio of explanatory power to problems that we've got. But aside from repeating the steps of the scientific method ad nauseum, I think kids should be given a clearer picture of science: What it's based on, how it operates, what it will not answer, all the incredible things it's done, and how there may be things that are wrong and always will be uncertainties. And that's part of the discipline. The good news, you can tell them, is good science is set up so that it will seek out and find what's wrong. And that's it's greatest virtue. So take the answers as truth with only a small grain of salt.