Someone should post about, like, Q3, or something at some point

Rupert Sheldrake is the don of blending the two. He comes up with truly new age-yideas (like the morphogenic field), which are stated in a scientific manner, good for firing the imagination at least.

However what then is the point of setting Science in opposition to Religion if it’s simply ‘explainign things from a given point of view’? Thereby Religion and science are compatible and can cohabit quite nicely as they never have to bother with the nuisance of disagreeing with one another.
I would also argue that the example you’ve given on Newton’s laws is a good one that helps enforce the point I made when saying:

“…There could be many reasons or exceptions to our rule…just in general, our rule works most of the time…”

Additionally I would say that this illustarates another point I had missed. Atomic science is one game, just as sub atomic science is another. Pythagorus and quadratic equations so to speak. Related, but not equivalent schools of scientific thought.

I agree on the word use terms, the irony of course is that the connotations of the words ‘hypothesis’ and ‘theory’ are of something weak and testable as a result of science promoting that model of thought.
As long as we speak in equivalences there is no problem, there are no ‘facts’ in Relgiion either, just plenty of theories.

Two things come to mind on your science bit. One, the idea that science should spring from fact to fact is a bit off base in the first place, because it sort of implies an objective truth – that there is a set of facts about the universe that can be conclusively established. What often science aims to do is tell what is observable from a certain point of view. Newton’s laws of motion are dead on, make excellent predictions, until you look at them from a different perspective – the very small. The fact they break down doesn’t make them any less useful OR less accurate, they just necessitate specifying how you are observing things. Obi Wan stylee.

This leads in to my second point, the terms “hypothesis” and “theory”. These often give the impression of being vague words, words that convey significant doubt and undercertainty, but that really undervalues them. Almost any machine, mechanical, chemical or biological, that humans make is predicated on a theory – often a theory descibed by a concrete mathmatical model that precisely tells you how to run a nuclear reactor, or create a medicinal drug. You don’t prove theories, in the most part, you disprove them. In fact, the better a theory is, the easier it should be to disprove it! That doesn’t mean, however, that it necessarily _can_ be disproven.

This whole debate would go better if Karl Popper was part of every RE class in the country methinks. Also if Fight Club were part of every RE class in the country.