"Science" is usually proven wrong by...other scientists. It's on ongoing 
process of testing, observation, discovery, etc. Or, at least, it should 
be. If you've read Taubes then you know how human bias and other 
circumstances ($$, etc) can get in the way of the scientific method and 
really screw things up (sometimes from inside the scientific community, 
sometimes from without, sometimes both).

Regardless, "science" isn't a thing, it's a methodology. Sometimes, 
hypotheses are proven wrong and that's a good thing -- it's the whole 
point of scientific method. It does not follow that because "science" 
has sometimes been proven wrong that therefore "science" is always 
wrong, or probably wrong, or isn't valid. "Science" is neither always 
right, nor always wrong.

Brenda Young wrote:
> Yeah, there is science in either way, yep.  And I don't much hold things in my brain with "science", but since you guys are going with this, whatever.  How many times has science been proven WRONG?????
>
>
>
>
>   
>> Archaeologist hate this stuff (forbidden knowledge!), 
>>     
>
> In your mind, maybe. Archeologists, pretty much by definition, LOVE puzzles.. 
>
>   
>> of it:http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ancientman/04_cup.html
>> http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/13anc03.htm
>> http://s8int.com/page8.html
>>     
>
> Ah yes. Thanks for reminding me of these sites. I've visited them numerous times, and explored their arguments. When you get past the more flippant comments, some of their anti-evolution evidence is intriguing. Almost all of it (as far as I can recall) has also been addressed - scientifically - by real scientists -  at the TalkOrigins.org site. 
>
>   
>> And the book "Human Devolution" by Michael A. Cremo subtitled A Vedic
>> Alternative to Darwin's Theory.
>>     
>
> Have not read it. Sounds interesting.
>
>
>       
>
>