Are you misunderstanding the Scientific Method?

[bluegreenearth]

Theistic apologists are invited to describe their own understanding of how the Scientific Method broadly functions to investigate claims.

From there, at least one willing and able volunteer from the audience should try to cooperatively help the apologist determine if that understanding is consistent with how the Scientific Method is actually designed or if a misunderstanding occurred somewhere. I strategically used the word "cooperatively" because it is not likely that any volunteer from the audience will have the necessary expertise to serve as an authority on the Scientific Method but may have sufficient competency to identify where a misunderstanding occurred and work with apologists accordingly.

Just to clarify:
This thread is not about encouraging theistic apologists to accept the Scientific Method as the most reliable source of knowledge or publicly attacking any objections some of them might have to it. At the same time, apologists who choose to participate should try to exhibit some self-control and intellectual humility by resisting any compulsions they might have to assert their objections against the Scientific Method. If anyone is interested in debating those objections, there are more applicable threads available on this forum. The ultimate goal here is to provide apologists with a more accurate understanding of how the Scientific Method actually functions and help them avoid misrepresenting that process during debates.