Evidence for God from Science

I wanted to know from the fellow members here which method they think is better for coming to sound conclusions about the world we live in: Science or Zeteticism.

To sum up the differences, Science starts with a hypothesis, then seeks to test it with experiments. If the hypothesis is tested to be correct after much experimentation, it has more certainty of being true. But Zeteticism starts with experiments and then makes a conclusion based on all the evidence. In other words, the hypothesis and testing stages are reversed between science and zeteticism.

Question: Which should a researcher use? Which is better?

I would say Zeteticism is better.Because hypothesis's are not always tested properly yet are accepted as true according to science.I'm an evidence based person.Don't be telling me something is true if you have no evidence to back it up especially if it is science.

jalvarez4Jesus wrote:But Zeteticism starts with experiments and then makes a conclusion based on all the evidence.

After making a conclusion, wouldn't you want to design experiments to test the conclusion?