[gore3000]

But the reason for that is they are all "rigorous" in a way that biology is not,

Actually biology is pretty rigorous. Perhaps the question you have with it is that it is just fairly recently that we have been able to scientifically examine many of the assumptions which were being made about how organisms work. We have medicines and many cures for ailments which do work. We are learning every day exactly how many things in our bodies occur through very exact experimentation. We do not have all the answers, and we never will but that is true of biology as well as the other sciences.

[betty boop]

When I said that the physical sciences were "rigorous" in a way biology was not, what I mean to suggest was that it's comparatively easier to remain "objective" in those fields, for issues of human origin and history do not come into play. Perhaps it's a very small point; yet it seems rather a fundamental one when the subject of evolution comes up. Hypotheses of that subject quite often seem to be driven by fundamental world view rather than direct, empirical evidence. Given the subject matter and the time frame involved, this is hardly surprising.

When biology sticks to what can be directly observed, however, it can be just as rigorous as the physical sciences. I think the human genome project, for instance, is a good illustration of this.

JMHO FWIW.