I recently read about a scientist accused of "starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence." Think about this for a moment. When trying to prove a theory, we begin with a theory, do we not? We then test the theory, trying to prove it wrong. If we cannot prove it wrong, we allow it to stand as True.
However, we also reject "bias." Is not the process of theorizing also a form of bias? If we reject bias AND theory, together, we are left with mere facts, scattered about, which we must pick up and paste together the best we can. Even then, when pasting them together, we eliminate certain conclusions that we have previously theorized are "impossible." For instance, if we see a human person affixed to a structure of impossible height, and no presence of any machinery or assistive device that would allow him access to that height, we could look at the facts, and then *reject* the conclusion that he flew there, because we are biased into thinking Human Flight is impossible. With this biased starting point, we begin what we call the scientific process. We might subtly develop other "theories" in our mind, though we might not realize they are there, but they read something like this: "Well, he didn't fly there, we know that. Did he climb?" and we look for evidence to support the climbing theory. Or we say, "Well he couldn't have flown, but he might have been catapulted from a distance." and we search for pieces of "evidence" that support a catapult theory.
That sounds terribly amateur, but isn't this the Scientific Method?
Actually, I have a much better Method worked out for diving truth, and it's called "I SAW IT HAPPEN," or, History (I SAW IT HAPPEN AND I WROTE ABOUT IT).
10 or 40 people approach you, the scientist, gazing at the mystery of this human person at this impossible height. They, one by one, privately from each other, tell you they were there, a moment ago, and watched this person fly up to this height and settle there of his own accord. "Human flight?" you say, "Impossible. These people are all crazy or lying." However, they continue to file by, each with his own unique story of what he was doing and how he saw this first miraculous example of human flight. "Preposterous," you say, "I can't understand how so many crazy, lying people got loose today, all in the same day."
Sadly for you, you have just missed out on the first and only instance of human flight. Though the 10 or the 40 will go on to document their, you have already theorized in your mind that human flight is impossible, and so you reject all evidence, testimony, and history that supports it.
And you call it Science.
And you say it disproves the Resurrection.
In my opinion, History beats Science every day.