I suggest you consult with a medium.
I cited a source for Popper's analysis of the demarcation problem. The philosophy of science awaits your rebuttal of Popper's arguments. Popper, incidentally, rejected logical positivism.
Yes, like they did in the days of geocentrism and phlogiston...so much for 100% reliability.
You are confusing two issues: the demarcation between scientific truth and scientific falsity; and the demarcation between science and non-science.
There was no scientific community, in any meaningful sense of the term, which believed in geocentrism. There was a nascent scientific community around the time phlogiston was being discredited. That community was in the process of sorting out for itself what arguments could be called scientific and what could be considered non-scientific.
Priestley, for example, made a spirited defense of phlogiston based on what were clearly scientific arguments. He was wrong, but he was being scientific. Had he defended phlogiston based on Biblical exegesis he would have been both wrong and non-scientific.
Clearly, these men were able to make their discoveries as a DIRECT RESULT of their theistic worldview which says that the universe is rational and ordered and understandable because the Creator is rational and ordered.
That the universe is ordered is clearly false by observation; the Universe is substantially disordered, and has been shown to be so, on length scales from nanometers to megaparsecs. The central scientific concept of temperature requires disorder; entropy, a state function central to thermodynamics, is a quantitative measure of that disorder. Any component of the universe at a temperature higher than 0 K has a positive entropy. Therefore the statement that the Universe is ordered is scientific but false.
That the universe is rational and understandable remains to be demonstrated, since the only way we can prove something to be understandable is to understand it, and there is much of the Universe we don't understand. I would argue this is therefore an unscientific statement at present, given that the means do not exist to test it, either directly, or by means of predictions dependent on it.
The premise that there exists a Creator is not testable. Given the inability to test the existence of the Creator by observation or experiment, statements about the qualities of the Creator must similarly be untestable by observation or experiment. The statements are therefore not scientific by Popper's demarcation criteria.
Summary:
Universe is ordered: Scientific, false
Universe is rational, understandable: Unscientific
Creator is rational, ordered: Unscientific because premise is unscientific.
I think you've gone off the deep end, prof. Now, where did I last see that North Star? Hmmmm.
Laughable statement since you could not function in this world if it wasn't. There is an ORDERED and rational subject-object relationship between you and the universe. To deny that is to live a hopeless insane dichotomy. The leaf on the tree is green and if it separates from the tree, it will fall to the ground 100% of the time. There are many constants and laws that apply universally, and these are only discoverable becuase they are rational and ordered. You can start quoting QM, but these don't apply to you - you function well in the subject-object relationship, and the laws of physics are reliable and measurable, regardless of what is going on at the quantum level.
Universe is rational, understandable: Unscientific
Is that so? According to your definition of science (which you are not able to divulge)? If the universe were not rational, then human beings would not be able to understand anything about it at all! Go to your dictionary and look up the word "rational." Humans beings use REASON to understand the universe and, quite obviously, reason has been used quite effectively to understand many things about the universe. That makes it rational. I don't know what you are trying to pull here, but your statements are wildly NON-RATIONAL.
Creator is rational, ordered: Unscientific because premise is unscientific.
Define "unscientific" or stop making arguments that use the term.