“Forensics with less conclusive evidence have sent criminals to the gas chamber. “
Absolutely. But that still doesn’t mean that forensics, which is the study of one-time past events, is equivalent to the scientific method, which postulates that a theory can be tested repeatedly.
Juries deliberate on the basis of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. They can’t possibly say exactly what happened because one-time events can’t be tested repeatedly. A jury ruling is based on belief. Do you want to relegate science to just a strong belief on the part of a group of scientists? That’s a really low standard.
‘Try explaining the branching of the genomes of various animals without evolution and without saying, “because the Bible says so”.’
I don’t understand your point here. It is possible we will never be able to explain — in a true scientific sense — ‘the branching of the genomes of various animals’. At least until some brilliant physicist builds a time machine.
I still don’t understand the emotional component of this argument for scientists. There is no repeatable test under controlled conditions which can test and falsify the TOE but many absolutely insist that they know this is how it happened. For example, what is a transitional form? It seems obvious that a transitional form must be both similar and dis-similar from the previous form. What is the minimum change or difference required to distinguish a transitional form? How can one set up an experiment and a control group to determine the minimum difference required to say one item is a transitional and another is not? No one can even establish a basis for such things but many scientists have declared it is ‘just so’.
The TOE should be called ‘Science Lite’ because it is definitely a lightweight when it comes to following the scientific method. Of course, if it really is just forensics, then it should be stated as such and then the Crevo arguments will probably die away pretty quickly.
There is no need to do that. A theory makes certain predictions. These predictions must be falsifiable. It's easier to do a test in a lab but there is no restriction for a theory it must be testable in a lab.
“For example, what is a transitional form? It seems obvious that a transitional form must be both similar and dis-similar from the previous form. What is the minimum change or difference required to distinguish a transitional form?”
Depends on the amount of fossils you got of one type and another one. Say you have a huge amount of A and a several B all older than A. They look similar. So scientist predict that there have been a transitional form. Sometimes scientist are able to find such a kind of fossil sometimes not.
“How can one set up an experiment and a control group to determine the minimum difference required to say one item is a transitional and another is not?”
You see there is no need to do such an experiment. Is there a transitional form between you and your grandfather? I guess so.
It's the same thing for art, kind, type and any other typologies. They are man made and won't fit always proper to nature.