Where do you draw the line between true science and hypothetical science?
Easy.. The scientific world I live in (and true science) is a simple method.
Example...I have an idea about a compact pressure fed turbo pump. I say it will flow 15k cfm at 8k psi... So I build this design and test it, either it works or it doesn't. If it works, I will continue testing it, if it does not, then I will see the failure, make changes, and test again.
I then will record all the stats of it, how much power it consumes, efficiency, heat soak etc etc etc.
This is science...Hard facts... It's binary, a simple yes or no.
Hypothetical science, origins, macro evolution, general relativity, string theory etc etc etc. Although I enjoy string theory, and I find it quite plausible, I am not touting it as fact. Nor do I call people ignorant for not thinking it is fact. I even find alot of plausibility in GE.
Simply this...I believe the higher power I have
faith in is a fact. Hence the bolded word.. I can cite much circumstantial evidence for both a higher power, and the exact higher power I believe in...Though in the end, I am fully aware, despite whatever circumstantial evidence, it is a faith and a belief.
The issue I have with "hypothetical science" is all the yuppies cite "fact fact fact" "science science science" when it is neither. Then call all who don't agree cavemen, simplitons, and morons.
When in reality it is "faith faith faith" "belief belief belief"..