[js1138]

That standard would make most of science invalid. Most of geology, nearly all of astromomy. And these are the math intensive sciences.

Anyone who has been to police training knows that eyewitness is the most unreliable form of evidence. Forensic evidence is far more reliable.

[PatrickHenry]

Observe how creationists -- in pursuit of their allegedly "scientific" goals -- try to warp nature of science. If they had their way, Genesis would become a science text, uncontradicted by anything else that was "scientific" (as they would re-define it). How do they plan to go about this?

First, they want to tighten the requirements of science to exclude evidence they don't like. One way to do this is by restricting science solely to those phenomena that are reproducible in the lab. We see this argument being made quite often. Were they successful in this effort, science would no longer include fields that rely on observations of natural phenomena, such as geology, plate tectonics, volcanism, astronomy, cosmology, and of course -- evolution. They reject the discoveries of those sciences because they can't be reproduced in the lab, and dismiss all conclusions by flippantly asking: "How do you know? Were you there?" They'll eventually have to exclude a lot of lab-reproducable science too, because atomic theory (specifically fusion) supports the age of the sun, and radiometric dating supports the age of the earth.

At the same time, they want to loosen the requirements of science to include "evidence" they do like, by opening up science to unverifiable (and perhaps supernatural) influences. This is the effort being made in Kansas:
Conservatives Seek Redefinition Of Science In Kansas Schools [Evolution vs Creationism].

Unsurprisingly, this is the same thing the Discovery Institute wants to do. From their website:

Questions about Intelligent Design

1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. [Emphasis added by me.]

2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.
Source: Top Questions.

[Fester Chugabrew]

That standard would make most of science invalid.

If you say so. In dealing with the physical world and human knowledge there are ways I tend to be less extreme. Eyewitness testimony to crime, inasmuch it deals with historic events, is subject to error. It does not enjoy repeated testing either. Human motives add to the potential for lies and, as a result, injustice. I am not as inclined as you to put courtroom activities on the level of "science."

Geology has a present world to observe and document. So does Astronomy. There are records (written in human language) showing observations of previous generations that are valuable in learning about the earth's history and the motions of heavenly bodies. When I question the claims and validity of evolutionism as "science," it is the unobserved, unrecorded assumption that all life is derivative of a common ancestor that I have in mind, or that order can arise apart from an intelligent agent.

In that regard, not unlike liberalism, evolutionism is not content to be called what it is: weak history and strong philosophy.