1) "What's true is determined by the scientific method" is, in fact, an axiom based on the old "obviously true" assumption.
2) There is thus far no evidence that the scientific method can deduce what the universe is and why it came into being. So according to the scientific method, we should probably be concluding that the truth isn't determined by the scientific method. It is a window into a fairly small subset of the truth.
3) We don't use the scientific method in court cases, we use standards of evidence and reasonableness tests. So when it matters what the truth is we don't use science (and, indeed, probably could not because it is too limited to achieve fairness).
1. The scientific method is a way to rank all the available theories that has proven remarkably useful in practice. There is no presumption in the scientific method. It's the right way only because any other way is chaotic and doesn't lead to a single answer (shooting arrows in the dark).
2. To unseat the scientific method would require a method with even more usefulness and consistent and proven track record. There is no other such method.
3. Courts are responsible for application of human law (which is completely different from an exploration of what is true). Would you be able to determine the laws of gravity in a court of law? Does that even make sense?
> ...any other way is chaotic and doesn't lead to a single answer (shooting arrows in the dark).
"God did it" isn't remotely chaotic and is a much more consistent answer than what the scientific method turns. One of the key parts of the scientific method is that scientists are constantly throwing out theories that are thought to be reasonable but eventually turn out to be inconsistent with the evidence; the process is quite muddled.
And you can't justify why you think consistency of the answer is the best indicator. It is still unlikely to give correct answers about the truly foundational stuff, the scientists just don't know.
> Courts are responsible for application of human law (which is completely different from an exploration of what is true)
You're implying that we don't care about the truth when deploying force against our own community. I put it to you that this is an area where the truth is of utmost importance. It has immediate implications on how people live! The only reason we don't make a habit of deploying scientists in the courtroom is that their methods are ineffective at working out the truth in general. They are only good at deducing a small handful of truths that are usually only important to engineers.
Which god? There are billions of them if you lump all the religions together.
And what did they do exactly? And what are they likely to do in the future? How is this position any different from "we know nothing and can deduce nothing"? I don't know about you but I find that a very sad way to live a life.
1) "What's true is determined by the scientific method" is, in fact, an axiom based on the old "obviously true" assumption.
2) There is thus far no evidence that the scientific method can deduce what the universe is and why it came into being. So according to the scientific method, we should probably be concluding that the truth isn't determined by the scientific method. It is a window into a fairly small subset of the truth.
3) We don't use the scientific method in court cases, we use standards of evidence and reasonableness tests. So when it matters what the truth is we don't use science (and, indeed, probably could not because it is too limited to achieve fairness).