The smoldering of EVC

Except that the scientific method is no such thing, of course. As has been explained many times, the scientific method is observation, the formation of a theory based on the observation, and then (so crucially) the rigorous testing of that theory with evidence.And it all hangs together. We have numerous fields of science which all work together. And the scientific method works so well that it has brought us electricity, gunpowder, medicines, x-rays, tsunami warnings, visits to the moon, GPS sat-navs, the internet, the humble pair of glasses hanging on my face.And that scientific method is applied rigorously in all fields of science, including geology and biology, to show that the earth is old, and that evolution is what has happened. (Neither is proven in the mathematical sense, but the conclusions are so certain, that we accept them as fact). You cannot, with any level of integrity, argue that the scientific method works in every area which doesn't contradict the bible, but miraculously stops working when it comes to areas which do.Purely imaginitive speculation is what happens when you have an a priori conclusion you want to reach, and the scientific method doesn't reach that conclusion. A good example of this is speculating that a geological layer containing only terrestrial fossils and no marine fossils must have been laid down by a flood - now that, I'm afraid is purely imaginitive speculation.

Nonsense. There is nothing whatsoever in the scientific method that says that a process or event has to be witnessed by the scientist at the time it occurs, in order for the scientific method to be applied to it.And scientists are always willing to consider alternative theories or explanations, but they will not waste their time doing so if there is no evidence to support the alternatives.The reason we come up with plausible sounding objections to alternative explanations is to show that the alternative explanation is not only unevidenced, but is fundamentally flawed. If you claim that a flood laid down a geological layer that contains terrestrial, but no marine fossils, then I and others are pointing out that you haven't explained what process did the clever sorting of the two types of dead creatures/plants. Our objection isn't unproven - the "proof" is that there aren't any marine fossils in that layer - it's up to you as the proponent of your explanation to tell us why there are no marine fossils.

You've got me speculating idly about Schroedinger's Cat - maybe the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics applies to all aspects of scientific enquiry, and unless someone is present to actually look inside the relevant scientific box, both the rational and the irrational explanations apply ;-)