Your own words.
Here I thought I was hearing just a bit of the language of truth from you, but now right away you have to go careening off into blathering nonsense.
Which is all merely your opinion, as per you. Truth is a word best avoided in science. Seems that you only allow for opinions which agree with yours. All others are awarded the same derision which the other evos direct at someone who disagrees with them.
Define *science*.
Define *science*.
I think your wide-sweeping criticism of my posts is unwarranted. I've been careful to distinguish between what is fact and what just my opinions, and of course, you're free to challenge me on anything, if you don't think I can back it up.
My point here was, that my opinions should be considered just as valid as those of the supposed "scientists" at "major universities" who signed you statement claiming they were "skeptical" of evolution. My guess is that few if any of those "scientists" do evolution related work, and for certain none has ever published peer-reviewed articles in recognized journals on the subject.
So, of course everyone can have an opinion, but on this subject my opinions should weigh just as heavy as theirs -- which is to say, in so many words, obviously not very much!
On the definition of the word "science," you might start with this Wikipedia article:
Note especially that "science" and "natural philosophy" were considered almost synonymous.
But more to the point is this discussion by Eugenie Scott (p50):
"Twentieth- and twenty-first-century scientists limit themselves to explaining natural phenomena using only natural causes for another practical reason: if a scientist is "allowed" to refer to God as a direct causal force, then there is no reason to continue looking for a natural explanation.
"Scientific explanation screeches to a halt. If there were a natural explanation, perhaps unknown or not yet able to be studied given technological limits or inadequate theory, then it would never be discovered if scientists, giving up in despair, invoked the supernatural. Scientists are quite used to saying, "I don't know yet."
"Perhaps the most important reason scientists restrict themselves to materialist explanations is that the methods of science are inadequate to test explanations involving supernatural forces.
"Recall that one of the hallmarks of science is the ability to hold some variables constant in order to be able to test the role of others. If indeed there is an omnipotent force that intervenes in the material world, by definition it is not possible to control for -- to hold constant -- such actions.
"As one wag put it, 'You can't put God in a test tube'; and one must add, you can't keep Him out of one, either. Such is the nature of omnipotence -- by definition.
"As a result, scientists do not consider supernatural explanations as scientific. As a matter of fact, limiting scientific explanation to natural causes has been extraordinarily fruitful. In the spirit of of the adage 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it,' scientists continue to seek explanations in natural processes when doing science, whether they are believers or nonbelievers in an omnipotent power.