I've honestly had to speed read all the posts since my last visit. That teaches me to get a week of work in.

I've heard allot about faith, and its true, you have to have faith to think evolution is true. All things start with the faith that you exist. After that you have to pony up, and believe that other people exist, and finally that we all are bound by some type of general reality.

Scientific method is a way to derive what it true. (General reality) Its wrong allot, and this is where the creationalist seem to collect. This part is what science is all about. Build a model that will predict what will or has happened. If the model starts to fail, then cook up a new one. The re-due is almost the most important part. Empirical evidence supersedes anyone's model that doesn't match objective reality. If this fails to happen then we are no better than the creationalists who already predetermine what is true because its written in a book.

I've read allot about how scientific method is flawed, and I simply ask. What method do you prescribe to replace it?