I cannot believe the amount of tenacity displayed by one poster over a high-school definition that he once learned. What is science? Hmmm, a process that employs the scientific method, of course! But what is the scientific method? One that employs observation, hypothesis and experiment. Of course, the way to win an argument is to narrow your definition of experiment so that most of the major sciences cannot be included (astronomy for one). I remember reading an article fairly recently about the phenomenon that if you ask most of the leading scientists, regardless of field of study, "what is science?" you would get reasonably different answers, that is because methods differ between fields, and reasonably so. This is because most natural phenomena do not lend themselves to direct control whereby one variable can be controlled, as in freedivers strict definition. However most sciences consider the natural world to be like a giant experiment where variables are interdependent on one another. Considering this, observations of phenomena can be made, hypotheses or predictions can be made from a formulated model of how that particular phenomena occurs, and (this is the important bit) further observation (or a search) can be made for the conditions that to falsify that hypothesis (note, NOT confirm, thats also important). The most important aspect of science is not actually its explanatory power (believe it or not!), its actually its PREDICTIVE power. Now show me a creationist prediction that is consistent with their hypotheses that will hold up under a search for falifying observation and then you will have a "creation science". Until then, don't bother.

Falsifying findings in the name of a higher philosophical positioning is done frequently, by those who have an alternative agenda other than the principled existence of Truths in Science.

In some instances where the philosophical position commands compliance, and when that corrupt protocol is violated by someone who has more conclusive answers that dispel the common fallacy driven Hypothesis; are driven out of their positions or at the least; nothing will be published in the journals. Or depending of the Location and position- They may well go missing.

Then those persons of ability become vilified- Removed from position- or go missing (Now where else does that apply?)
It does take some ability to enable detection of fraudsters, and it makes it extremely hard to continue with Science when so many Academic frauds and Fakers line the positions. (Again, where else does that apply?)

You just have to learn more disciplines to be enabled to detect it when it is confronted.

Its hard- but it has to be done.

I should have included this above; Sorry.

I had forgotten this, here is an article written by the Late David Stove in reference to: “So you Think You are Darwinian” : http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/77/

(Sorry Anomie) but in context to the argument it is a necessity.

That "article" isn't a necessity at all, it's rubbish. It doesn't get to the point, picks out little bits, peripheral to the whole concept evolution, that the author disagrees with, with the authors own incorrect interpretation and then proceeds to argue they are central to the whole idea of evolution. It made my eyes bleed, it's rubbish.

Gosh Bugsy, don’t you feel that to be a little over the top;
I’m sure the whole intent was a need to embrace some points of Irony with humor; if it made your eyes bleed, then I suppose there are some specific symptoms you need to take care of.

Shheesh Lighten up.

If it was intended to be humorous, then it was indeed ironic.