All these critiques of science, even by esteemed writers like Tolstoy, are balderdash, for they completely miss the point. As philosopher Karl Popper noted, the litmus test of a scientific hypothesis is that it is, in principle, falsifiable if new evidence is discovered that refutes it.

So "truth" has nothing at all to do with science, for by definition, it is not falsifiable. All scientists--and honest thinkers of all varieties--can even know are hypotheses, or causal generalizations about what the current evidence suggests. But such hypotheses are tentative in principle. We can never know the next fact, before it is discovered.

So what is "truth"? Does it even have a stable meaning? Or is it simply what seems to "ring true" for us subjectively, at least until it is disproven. Most of the folks who still adhere to creationism do so because, from the standpoint of their own religious traditions, it "rings true." But their doctrine of divine creation cannot possibly be falsified by any evidence. For this very reason, it is not scientific.

When I encounter creationists, I often pose this challenge:" If I told you that God created the universe yesterday afternoon at 4:15 PM, and that everything we remember or talk about from before then is just an implanted fake memory, put there by the Devil to deceive us, would you be able to disprove my claim?" Of course not. And for that exact reason, such a claim is NOT scientific.