[Hostage]

This is a very informative article for the layperson of science.

Popper’s theory and other scientific commentary articulate well that the difference between science and astrology as systematic bodies of reasoning is that science can be wrong whereas astrology is never wrong because it always has another explanation according to its zodiac.

With science there is true learning by trial and error. With astrology there is never trial and error, there is always another interpretation that fits so that true learning never takes place.

Let that sink in.

[ClearCase_guy]

I see plenty of parallels between Global Warming and Darwinism. Neither can be proved wrong. There's always SOMETHING which allows the believer to hang on to their faith.

Now, one might say Idea #1 is a lot better science than Idea #2 -- but conversing with the two sets of believers is precisely the same experience. It's all insults, all emotion, all "you just don't understand/you reject science/I know the facts".

For me, Darwinism is not scientifically superior to Global Warming. They are religious cults and they refuse to be disproven by any evidence.