Replies

Science in Merriam Websters dictionary; " a department of systemized knowledge as an object of study, (the science of theology).
"knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method"
Of course that includes a wide varied of subjects. And there are many very reputable creation scientists that would differ with your charcterization of the toe debate being over. They are no less qualified than any other scientist.

That's not the meaning that is used by scientists, like physicists or biologists. Physics, biology, chemistry, and so on; these are all NATURAL sciences, and as such, have their field of inquiry limited to strictly natural, testable claims. That is not something that CAN change. It is the nature of what science is.

""knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method"

That would be acceptable, if vague. The scientific method is confined to the natural world.

"And there are many very reputable creation scientists that would differ with your charcterization of the toe debate being over."

The debate is over for 99%+ working biologists. *Creation scientists* is an oxymoron.

"They are no less qualified than any other scientist."

Sure they are if their field of study is not biology, or if they have abandoned the methods of science.

There is no field of the natural sciences (what is meant when one says *science*) that examines anything but the natural world.

oh, dear... the appeal to Webster.
It is ever an error to go to the dictionary if one is not familiar with the roots of the terms being considered.

As the word (and meaning of) "science" stems from Latin, I'll now mildly one-up you with the Harper Collins Latin Concise Dictionary:

scio, scire, scivi, scitum - vt to know; to have skill in; (with inf.) to know how to; quod ~iam as far as I know; -ito you may be sure
you should be able to see that "scio" means "to know" as in: facts and figures, mechanisms, practical applications, real-world causality and consequence. It is clearly NATURALISTIC in its denotation. This is backed up with the denotations of the related words sciens (knowing, with purpose, deliberate), scientia (knowledge, skill), scisco (to inquire, to learn, to question), scitor (to inquire), and seems to have been derived directly from scindo (to cut open, to divide, to part, to dissect). <
Let's compare the root meaning of science with the following alternative Latin words having bearing on this discussion:

cognosco, cognoscere, cognovi, cognitum - (vt)
to get to know, learn, understand; to know, recognize, identify; (law) to investigate; (military) to reconnoiter
As opposed to scire, this indicates "to know" in a general, vernacular sense, and "to know" in a philosophical sense, as from study of Hellenic ditherings - it is, after all, directly derived from Greek "gnosis"
It is a long step away from the pragmatic knowledge indicated by scio

cogito, cogitare, cogitavi, cogitatum - (vt, vi) to think, ponder, imagine; to feel disposed; to plan, intend

credo, credire, cerdidi, creditum - (vt, vi) to entrust, lend, have confidence in; to believe; to think, suppose; ~eres one would have thought

Now, look, fabian - the Romans were a brutally pragmatic people, and their language reflected this. THEY were wise enough to distinguish between knowledge based on hard practical facts and "the other kinds of (cough!) 'knowledge'" imputed in the airy omphaloskepticisms of the philosophers and the pronouncements of self-described religious authorities.

It is a pity that Webster was not so wise as the Romans, really - it is, but that is not my problem.