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. There is science that is not empirical, or not operable, and it remains a science.
forensics is strictly scientific. don't you watch tlc?
everything that's done in forensics is collecting evidence, and testing for certain things. i don't even know how you can say different, it's just absurd. this isn't like red dragon, where someone makes up a crazy psychological profile and magically catches the killer. it's methodically looking for trace evidence - hair, finger prints, blood, semen, etc - and other evidence such as bullet casings, blast patterns, blood splatter, etc. tests are performed to determine conclusively certain things - what kind gun or knife was used, from where in the room. these are all based on scientific data. tests are done on dna and fingerprints to determine matches on suspects.
forensics is VERY scientific.
The study of origins is such a science. Those who study are forced to speculate on origins whose beginnings are both unobservable and unrepeatable.
also wrong. studying origins is like doing forensic work. there is evidence to be tested, and certain aspects an be recreated in lab tests.
If evidence is interpreted as showing design in living organisms, then is it truly unscientific to conclude that there was a Designer?
first, it's very, very hard for evidence to conclude design. look at the face on mars. it looks designed, but it wasn't.
second, evolution provides for design. it's called artificial selection, and we do it all the time.
™ Version 4.2
