Roberts response makes sense, but I'm not sure if I agree with him. Ant, I have to disagree about theology and science being at odds. When the findings of science result in a theory that goes against the teachings of religion, I'd say they are at odds.
What then has science proven to be "true" to date?
Proven? Nothing, at the same time that evidence of it's verisimillitude is in every nook and cranny of American life. The distinction is that science is humble, and absolutes are left for the arrogance of religion. This is true to the philosophy of science, at the same time we can acknowledge the exceptions, but that applies to both sides.
There have been and are, to date, scientists that understand science is capable only of explaining secondary causation.
You are assuming there is any such distinction within causation.
The absence of evidence is not that same as evidence of absence.
This is only true up to the point where we should reasonably expect to find evidence for something. In that case, the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. Quantifying that threshold may be impossible, but it seems we're far past it.
The problem is that we aren't limited to vision, or to hearing, or to any one sense, as we were hundreds of years ago. If it is detectable, we can detect it. If the god of the bible were real, some of his influence on the universe would by definition be detectable, as we humans are supposedly influenced(by more than the motive of belief). But what we see is an absence of evidence where we should reasonably expect at least a small amount. I would consider that evidence of absence.
