According to science over the centuries, the scientific method is limited by that which can be tested, reproduced and falsified. That which lies outside of these parameters is not science but is in the realm of faith, of the un-testable, such as evolution and creationism. As our technical ability to observe reality improves, we are able to increase the quality and quantity of our observations. Better observed data challenge our explanations, some of which will no longer fit the observed facts - hence are in error - theories and laws alike. New theories are then formed and either verified or falsified against the scientific method which assumes an absolute reality against which theories and laws can be verified - that of accurate observations which absolutely reflect reality.

Over the last several hundred years, a number of theories have been repeated so often and verified as accurate that they are now considered scientific laws, i.e., they correctly model the absolute truth of reality, such as the law of gravity. Should someone claim a point of view that contradicts one of these laws, the burden of proof is on that person to prove that they can repeatedly demonstrate that the law is false. The standard of measure remains absolute truth about reality, verified through repeated testing, observation, and falsification.

For example, if statements by scientists re: gravity - hypotheses, theories, laws, etc., have contradicted one another over the centuries that does not then lead to the conclusion that the characteristics of gravity itself have changed, i.e., that gravity is not absolute. The fault so far lies with faulty use of the scientific method. Over the centuries there has never been definitive scientific proof, even reasonable speculation, that gravity has been inconsistent, i.e., not absolute in its characteristics for each specific circumstance when repeatedly tested, reproduced and falsified within the parameters of that specific circumstance. Rather gravity has been observed repeatedly over the centuries to behave in precisely the same way under each and every specific circumstance in accordance with the parameters of that circumstance without variance. Any reported variance has been due to incorrectly applying the scientific method and/or drawing unwarranted conclusions. So since gravity is unchanging, i.e., absolutely consistent in each and every circumstance when properly tested, reproduced and falsified within the parameters of that specific circumstance, until proved otherwise; then any points, theories or laws of gravity over the centuries which have contradicted one another are due to improper use of the scientific method, and not to a changing nature of gravity.

On the other hand non-scientific points of view such as the models of creationism / young earth or evolution / old earth which can only be based on unprovable assumptions, hence not scientific because they cannot be tested, reproduced and falsified, are most logically, hence best arrived at by examining those things which can be tested, reproduced and falsified which are as closely related to that hypothetical model as possible. Note that conclusions must be drawn which do not rule out one point of view just because it supports another. For example, more often than not, that which is tested to corroborate the possibility of evolution also corroborates the possibility of creationism equally well and without ruling out either, i.e., the result is inconclusive.