[allmendream]

No, almost all scientist are in agreement about what constitutes science. Moreover none of the hypotheses you mentioned (other than anthropogenic global warming, which I do NOT give a “complete free pass”)are even taught in science class at the high school level. Nor should they be until, like Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection, they have a vast body of supporting evidence.

There is nothing “failed” or “liberal” about current biological knowledge. In fact biology has never been a more productive field in terms of knowledge and application.

So I repeat, It is a choice between useful and applicable knowledge and useless religious apologetics.

[tpanther]

No, almost all scientist are in agreement about what constitutes science.

Ummmm nope, you yourself go on and on about religious apologetics when I refer to the chemist, so no they don’t.

Then there’s the whole Expelled” problem you have.

Hell, they can’t even agree on what to call Pluto, is it a planet, is it not...and so on.

Then there’s the whole issue about multiverse, string and membrane theory...and science can’t be science unless it’s strictly about natural science, which would squash any kind of scientific investigation into the effectiveness of prayer...

then there’s algore’s “the debate is over” and global warming in general...what the NEA teaches as science these days...

frankly you’re flailing about again today allmendream.

You can repeat and parrot but you’re still at square one.