Replies

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.

No: if I claimed to be an authority, I would have spelled out just how I would have thought so. Which would be in and of itself argumentum ad verecundiam should I have actually stooped to doing so as you have falsely claimed.

However, you yourself have not only used argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad hominem (repeatedly again in your last post: why do you insist on undermining yourself repeatedly by such?), Aunt Sally, but also argumentum verbosium where you post much but say little.

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 …

Neither of those assumptions are required in order for science and the scientific method to analyze the material universe.