[Ben K]

It would be inadequate if it was shown to not produce (and re-produce) results consistent with reality as perceived by everyone (normally minded) doing the experiments.

Good science tries to cover all bases and state all assumptions including method so if, in future, something was found to be wrong (method included) then the conclusion could be re-visited.

Religion has nothing reproducible and in many ways has nothing at all except "we have a book that says this happened x years ago". If it were true that this happened then (assuming reality hasn't changed materially) it would be reproducible.

This is why I like science. Everything ever worked out can be re-worked out tomorrow. Religion can't do that. I don't need the argument from authority, though like most lay people I accept it. If I really distrusted someone saying sound travels at x m.p.h then I could test it for myself.

You know all this, I'm wondering where you're trying to lead me.....