Even though theories and experiments are closely related, there is a fundamental disconnect between them. This is evident in the fact that multiple theories can use the same set of experiments as a basis, but give entirely different views on nature.

There is no such thing as a fact except in the light of some interpretive framework.

We may be misunderstanding each other. You may be talking about the influence that theories have on deciding which types of experiments are most useful. I am saying that the outcomes of experiments are always theory-free. When we experiment, Nature tells us the facts; it could care less what theory we had in mind when we did the experiment.

Experiments tell us the facts. Those facts can always be used to support multiple theories. I gave Quantum Mechanics as an example where the whole wealth of experiments done in that field can still support multiple theories equally.

It is similar to the children that play the game Hot and Cold. The experiments tell us if we are getting warmer or colder. The theories are just educated guesses of where we should experiment next.

Can you give me an example of theory-free experiments?

What makes a good theory is that it suggests experiments that confront it. If an experiment supports hundreds of theories its a bad experiment. Part of the purpose of an experiment is to confirm and test some theory. That’s in part what makes it science.

Yes, experiments are generally set up with some theory in mind, but the experiments are king. The problem is that the same set of experimental data can potentially support hundreds of theories, especially when the data are sparse.

In my opinion, we as a society have an enormous problem with the separation of experiment and theory. One being fact and the other just educated guessing.

I agree with your conclusions if you are talking about science that is experimental in nature (if I drop a stapler, then chances are it will hit the ground). I disagree with you if you also include theories that are heavily based on models or mathematics (e.g. Big Bang, String Theory, Climate Change, Evolution). I think it is pretty safe to bet against the conclusions of these types of theories. We have just seen too many cases in history where a small error in a theory entirely changes the conclusions.

Why can we not learn about the future universe just as we are learning about the past and present, through science? Obviously there was a process in how this world was created. And it was not a short process. It did not take six days, or six thousand years, but billions of years. This does not mean that God did not create the universe, it simply means that it took longer then what the Old Testament tells us.

And again, there was a process. A very long process, a scientific process. Matter formed, a world was created, plants and animals, (yes, through evolution) formed, and changed and grew. Just because we have found evidence of this through scientific methods, does not take God out of the picture.

Now, R. Gary, if we can see that through studying the past, and present, think of how much we can learn about our future.