Having said that, a forensic scientist, who may be forced to attempt a possible reconstruction of a murder, a murder which may have been unobserved and is certainly unrepeatable, would be rather offended is his work were referred to as unscientific.
Indeed he would, because that would be inaccurate, just as it's inaccurate to say that his work is not repeatable.
Each test the forensic scientist performs is individually repeatable. His work is repeatable, falsifiable, and scientific. To say that forensic science is not repeatable is to betray a staggering ignorance of the scientific method.
There is science that is not empirical, or not operable, and it remains a science.
No, there's not.
Scientists who identify themselves as creationists presuppose that a god exists, while those who identify themselves as evolutionists presuppose that a god does not exist
To the contrary, since most Christians believe that evolution is accurate and are, therefore, evolutionists, we know that some evolutionists suppose that there is a god. Others, like me, do not. This is irrelevant to the veracity of evolution, which has nothing to do with gods.
If evidence is interpreted as showing design in living organisms, then is it truly unscientific to conclude that there was a Designer?
If a designer can be substantiated by evidence, then it would not be unscientific to conclude a designer, no. What's unscientific is every attempt, so far, by creationists and ID'ists to substantiate their god based on nothing but human ignorance about natural processes.
™ Version 4.2