IBDaMann: You're in error. There's even a definition for it.
You were gullible when you read that and believed it. I highly recommend that you learn what
science is.
Look, I'm not your enemy. In fact, I'm going to be your best friend. I'm going to teach you a few things to give you a much more solid basis for presenting your argument. Your current line of reasoning is so riddled with errors and contradictions that you lose before you get out of the starting gate. Let's get you off and running.
First, science is nothing more than a collection of falsifiable models. You have fallen for the phony notion that the word "science" or "scientific" is some sort of dog-whistle that elevates whatever subjective term it modifies to the status of "objective truth that must be accepted as presented." For example, Christians use the words "Holy" and "Sacred" in the same manner. If a Christian were to quote from the Q'ran, he would say "This is what the Q'ran says ..." but if he quotes from the Bible, he claims to be quoting holy scripture. If a Christian were presented a robe supposedly worn by Mohammed, he would refer to it an ancient robe, but he would refer to the supposed burial robe of Jesus as the sacred shroud. The adjectives are intended to express that the audience is to simply accept something subjective as objective truth without the speaker having to provide any support. Ergo, when you say "scientific evidence", your audience understands that you have no intention of supporting your subjective claim, because you cannot, because you did not demand that the person making the claim to you support his claim, i.e. your audience understands that you are simply regurgitating without question what you have been told to preach by others.
This does not make you credible. In fact, it gets you ignored ... but not by me; I'll listen to you.
Second, "evidence" is entirely subjective on multiple levels. What even constitutes evidence in the first place is highly subjective, but what any accepted evidence means is also entirely subjective. This is why in a court of law, both sides submit what they consider to be "evidence" and both sides move to get what the other side has submitted thrown out as not being "evidence." Whatver remains as "evidence" is left for a jury to subjectively interpret as they will. You, however, tried pretending that "evidence" you were submitting had already been accepted by your audience, which it had not. You tried to accomplish by using the first point of referring to it as "scientific." Foul! Your "evidence" is subsequently tossed and is not admissible. Sorry.
Third, you are trying to get "research" classified as "science". Clinical trials and demonstrations are performed while conducting research. Unless new science is created resulting from this research, science doesn't enter the picture.
Thus, it is entirely absurd to refer to research as "scientific evidence." It prevents your argument from even getting out of the starting gate.
My recommendation to you is two-fold:
1. Read Darwin's
On the Origin of Species and know what it reads, so you don't make a long chain of erroneous assertions about what it supposedly says.
2. Divorce your argument from any need to link it to science; you can't. Darwin's theory of evolution is not science, and your apparent need to show that it isn't is very much misplaced.
The above will make your case much more solid.
www.lawinsider.com
www.merriam-webster.com
dictionary.cambridge.org
