Two types of science

When working in present day time and activity, all 5 human senses can be used to do all the empirical testing, measuring, and falsifying required by the scientific method to come to conclusions that can overcome personal beliefs and worldviews. Other things that are considered science, such as conclusions about what happened millions of years ago, or what's going on hundreds or thousands of light years away, the scientific method can only vaguely, or partially be applied. Little more than the sense of sight, for example, can be used to come to conclusions about space exploration.

It was only an opening post, intended to be brief and readable. Your questions allow me to go into more detail about my position. I'm not saying that anything that is only observable by one human sense cannot be scientific, I'm saying that if something is observable by only one human sense, and ALSO involves millions of years in the past, hundreds of light-years away, or conflicts with the basics of Christianity or U.S. foundings, then it may become too vague to be thoroughly enough analyzed by the scientific method.

Testability and falsifiability are the two key words. They were established only to shout down the concept of Intelligent Design ...

It would be more appropriate for you to show me how any detailed conclusion about something outside our solar system is testable or falsifiable, by means other than repetitive study by telescope.

Concerning the part I bolded, I wonder if those 33 research scientists lost their jobs? Possibly not, but one thing's for sure, those findings never will make it anywhere near a science textbook, because it could clash with what atheist prophet Dawkins said about selfish genes.

But it helps show that recent biological discoveries like DNA, the bacterial flagellum, etc. have less probability of falling together by purposeless natural processes.

These are typical statements from these types of cases, we all know which sides we're on, and this thread isn't really about a lot of detail about that discussion. But the fact is, these conflicts have been going on, are going on, and will continue to go on. The fact that the scientific community and 99% of its followers are ALWAYS militantly on one side should at least initiate some discussion about the possibility that two types of science exist, and there may be evidence that double standards exist in the scientific community.

Here's how Conservapedia describes the National Center for Science Education;

The NCSE has at least some unopposed CONTROL of what's being taught as science in public schools.

Unless science is funded by the public.

It's this straw man, this lie, that probably more than anything else, inspires millions of people all across the U.S. to take issue with what the science education establishment is doing. Christians in the U.S. who question science don't want their own religious rituals established in science, they want to get the atheism out.

If they could, they'd vote to make sure atheist activists like Barbara Forrest weren't members of anything that makes decisions about what their children will be taught.

"Any process at all", including random mutation and natural selection?

As far as I know, evolutionists will grudgingly admit that nature cannot have a purpose, and cannot plan for future function.

Without purpose and a plan, anything complex had to have come together by pure randomness.

I know what Dawkins says about the "blind, pitiless indifference" of nature, the obvious beliefs of naturalists that human emotions are not scientific.

If anyone interested in Intelligent Design has to be tied to the Wedge Document and the Discovery Institute, does it not logically follow that anyone interested in evolution must also be tied to Darwin, Huxley, and Herbert Spencer? If not, why not? Because ID is not as old as Darwin’s following? Evolution has moved on from much of Darwin's ideas (about the simplest forms of life for example) why is ID not permitted to equally move on from the Wedge Document?

No, it's a code for "a political establishment of atheism", something forbidden by U.S. foundings every bit as much, if not more, than "separation of church and state".

"Evolution does much better", with no purpose, and no planning?

That's no different than someone trying to open a combination lock with no knowledge of the proper numbers to use.

Because much complex falsification was required of Intelligent Design. The double standards are clear.