Replies

I never claimed to be an authority (and your inferring that I am attempting to be is argumentum ad hominem), but you write several posts including this one ascribing argumentum ad verecundiam to the government, to “the enlightenment”, and to other ephemeral “authorities” that you cannot or will not identify.

By the way, natural science is the most rigorous of all science, and by every test, Darwin’s alleged theory fails miserably, standing on assumptions. Assumptions are not part of natural science; they are unscientific by definition. Also, saying it is valid for the government to define what science is is an attack on natural science.

Olog-hai: "I never claimed to be an authority..."

You most certainly do!
Every time you announce, from your high throne on Mount Olympus, that this or that is, or is not, "real science", you proclaim your authority over definitions.

The fact is, you have no authority -- zero, zip, nada -- to declare anything to be included, or excluded, from the term "science".

And obviously, neither do I, but I am only here reporting on how the term "science" is used, rightly or wrongly, in today's America.
You may not like it, but that's what it is.

In today's usage, in courts of law and in public schools, the word "science" is short for our Founders' term "natural-science" which is specifically intended to exclude any reference to religious beliefs.
Courts have said that precisely how "science" will be understood must be determined, not by Olog-hai, but rather by actual scientists.
And therefore, Creationism is not science, regardless of how sincerely, or fiercely, you might wish otherwise.

But again I'll repeat: in your own home-school, or private school, you can teach all these matters however you wish.
It's only in the tax-payer dependent government-schools that such logic prevails.

Olog-hai: "By the way, natural science is the most rigorous of all science, and by every test, Darwin’s alleged theory fails miserably, standing on assumptions.
Assumptions are not part of natural science; they are unscientific by definition."

And there you go again!
Declaring from your high throne on Mount Olympus what is, or is not "science".
You can't do it, at most you can pronounce what you wish to be included or excluded, but I'll tell you in advance: your wishes are rejected.

What you people call "historical sciences" (geology, astronomy, paleontology, archaeology, bio-chemistry related to evolution, etc.) are all based important assumptions, including methodological naturalism and uniformitarianism.
And no amount of hand-waving on your part will change that, it is what it is, regardless of your declarations to the contrary.