As is par for you, you misrepresent. Nowhere did I state or imply the non-necessity of observable, testable, falsifiable evidence or the role it plays in forming theory and then testing and refining that theory.
You imply it quite regularly. You misrepresented what I said when you claimed - ''I only want to point out making "peer review" the arbiter of truth is to employ a logical fallacy---an appeal to authority'' - when I clearly and simply pointed to the role of peer review in science. That's just one example.
Nowhere did I state or imply that the scientific method is other than hypothesizing, testing and refining.
You overlook or downplay actual evidence, the physical fossil record, genetics, traits, etc, upon which theory is built,
But it is simply false to categorically state that religious faith and science are always and necessarily in conflict.
They are two entirely different ways and means of seeing the world. It's just a matter of chance If they ever coincide. Science doesn't deal with things that cannot be detected, gods, goblins, angels demons....these are the things of religion and faith, not science.
Science seems to confirm that the Universe had a beginning, just as Genesis teaches. Science also seems to confirm the truth of the Biblical proposition that "in the beginning was the Word (logos)" because in all of human experience, intelligence and information always precede the existence of specified complexity. There are thousands of other examples. And it remains the case that appealing to "peer review" as the ultimate measure of ascertaining scientific truth is fallacious. It is to employ a logical fallacy---the appeal to authority.
No such thing. You are writing your own narrative. Science says nothing about conditions prior to expansion, what caused it or whether time began with the BB. The universe may be an expanding bubble within a greater system or it may be cyclic....nobody knows. In contrast, religion claims to know. God, whatever that is, did it.
