[unlearner]

Well that is specific enough.

Do you consider Pasteur's tests of biogenesis and his germ theory of disease to be scientific? How 'bout his work in vaccinations and his development of pasteurization? Or his discovery of chirality?

He used rigorous testing which is held to be a model of science. His evidence to support his hypotheses were empirical and repeatable. But his formation of these hypotheses and selection of them for testing were informed by his confidence in the Bible being wholly true.

Specifically, he based his ideas on two principles taught in the Bible: (1) uncleanness causes disease, (2) life was created to propagate after its kind.

As I have pointed out before, science begins with an idea. There is no known scientific methodology to initiate that creative spark. It is not limited to ideas found in the Bible, but it also does not exclude them.

But by all means, since science based on the Bible cannot really be science, you should demand that our government stops promoting vaccinations because this violates separation of church and state (and the separation of state and common sense).

[RightWingNilla]

The Babylonian astronomers made extremely accurate star charts over the course of hundreds of years. Thier primary motivation however was their belief in Astrology.

Does this mean Astrology is "scientific"?