[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.

[gore3000]

Hypotheses of that subject quite often seem to be driven by fundamental world view rather than direct, empirical evidence.

On that I can agree wholeheartedly. In fact evolutionist reductionism has undoubtedly slowed down progress in the field. For example, while mendelian genetics clearly shows us that traits come from different alleles in parents evolutionists insisted for a long time that it did not apply in all cases. Of course by now we have found out that where some traits such as race seem to be a melding of the traits of the parents is due to different genes being involved in the production of the characteristics.