The foundations of experimental science: what is the standard of science and what is its rationale?

The foundations of experimental science: what is the standard of science and what is its rationale? Some may think that atheism is a position of nihilism that does not need justification, a position armed with science and logic, but faith is an additional positive position that needs justification for its existence, and seduces the interlocutor who believes in the abundance of logical and irrational suspicions and objections to religions, helped by that most Arab dialogues are consumer mechanical dialogues, such as talking about the details of the theory of evolution without asking the following questions: What is the evidence that evolution is science? This is summed up in: What does the atheist believe? Is experimental science infallible? The religion of the atheist is based on observation and varying experience; sometimes almost pure observation such as astronomy, and experimental times such as chemistry, and combining them as medicine and others, all under the name of inductive method in human knowledge. For example: the human extrapolation of the metal that it expands heat with specific experiments, and then circulates on metals this expansion and deduce the rule: metals expand heat and every metal - even if not subjected to experience - within the base as well, and for the experimental science must be a doctrine without evidence also, called "increase of accidents", which is the belief that a law such as (metals expand heat ..) was in the past as it is now and as it is to come. The belief in the extraneous part of the experiment, the rest of the metals, and the continuation of accidents is the dogma of the experiment on which science is based, it is a pragmatic belief without evidence, just as the atheist accuses the people of believing that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and Hume's formulation of this problem was terrifying to all experimenters, which made Russell describe the problem as one of the most difficult and controversial philosophical problems. Hume's skepticism was the most violent tremor in the history of atheism, despite being an extreme empiricist, who stated that it was a dogmatic doctrine of expediency, Farhang Zabeh, and made the justification of induction as justification of deduction, and sometimes "Rechenbach" when he felt that science in trouble justifies induction as a habit of good and sufficient, and when he returned to reason he did as much as he tried to drop experimental science rank! This is not a solution, but an inability to consciousness, and you will find words here and there, everyone is trying to say something, but to no avail. The solution has eluded, which made Whitehead say: Fashion now denies the rationality of science, and called this problem by several names, close to the names that the atheists call their suspicions such as scandal of religions and so on, and those names: scandal philosophy, despair of philosophy(4) ... And clearly Russell says: The science has proved that Hume is sufficient. But if we accept this one rule – induction – what then fits with our view that all our knowledge is based on experience? It must be admitted that this is a serious departure from pure empiricism, and some may ask: Why do we allow out of the realm of experience at this particular point and prevent others, such as any metaphysical belief? So where's the escape? Of course, the atheist can not move to the mental doctrine of knowledge (6), it is the nature of the atheist complete secondhand from (Earth, environment, experience) and rejects any previous first-hand about experience, because the question will follow him: Do you believe in mental priorities transcending experience? Rationalism, for example, believes that the logical solution to induction is the first mental law prior to any experiment and is "causal"; that is, to believe that the universe is an understandable organization, designed by God in this way, and there is no randomness, and there is no absurdity, each proceeding according to a specific system, and made so to cause such and such, and thus give you the legal generalization, otherwise you will find no way out except "probability", and then give up the alleged objective throne of empirical science. References: (1) Bertrand Russell, “The Problems of Philosophy”, Wilder Publications 2009, p.36. (2) Farhang Zabeeh, “Hume's Problem of Induction: An Appraisal”, Livingston & King (ed.), p.81. (3) Dr. Yemeni Al-Kholy, "The Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century", The World of Knowledge, p. 75, and for more about the idea of probability: reviews the logical bases of induction for Baqer Sadr. (b) Formerly, 78. (5) Bertrand Russell, “History of western philosophy”, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London 1946, p.699. (6) There are two main doctrines in human knowledge: - Empiricism: where knowledge is acquired by experience alone using human senses such as hearing and sight and all that the sense cannot perceive, and that the mind is born as a white page in which there are no primitive tribal innate things. Rational: Where the mind is the source of knowledge, man is born with innate priorities, but the mind is the greatest means of knowledge, as it is possible to deceive the senses. - Reza Zeidan. — Source: Brahin Center website - Published on 2014-08-02 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/science-scientism/أسس-العلم-التجريبي-ما-معيار-العلم؟-وما-أساسه-المنطقي