The most well-known scientists are those that came up with and provided evidence for original ideas. Wegener. Einstein. Margulis. Darwin. Kepler. Etc., etc., etc.
There is plenty of room in science for lateral and original thinking.
What there is not room for is laziness or lies.
The philosophy of Original thinking
Which are then confirmed or denied by opinions
You cannot get away from the fact that Science is as vulnerable as any activity and has subjective elements because the human mind is, by definition subjective.
Richard
Ideas in science are confirmed or denied by data and evidence, not opinions.
If you had read and understood the source you just cited, you’d know that it says that you should not confirm or deny ideas based on opinions, because “they can always be malicious or absurd” and “Opinions without sound foundations are senseless”.
So either you didn’t read your own source, in which case you’re lazy, or you did, in which case you’re incompetent or lying.
Either way you’re good for nothing more than 
and 
.
As usual.
And that is your opinion.
And their opinion.
The Scientific method is a philosophy.
All theories and scientific “laws” are consensus.
Scientists are humans with human brains. And any decision/conclusion made by a human brain is subjective.
Richard
I have constructed a hypothesis and demonstrated how it is supported by objective data. That’s not an opinion.
The philosophy here is empiricism which are sense based and objective facts. Is empiricism what you are talking about? Do you dislike the fact that science requires empirical measurements while excluding subjective beliefs?
What is this subjective environment? Either a base is the same or it is different between two species. That’s as objective as it gets.
Can you support this with any evidence? How are the algorithms not impartial or presupposed to prove what we expect to see? How are they subjective?
Added in edit:
Here is a comparison of sections from the human and chimp genomes.
102836535 acacagccagattccaggttacagggttattctgcttccgatcagataaa 102836584
>>>>>>>>> |||||||||| |||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||| >>>>>>>>>
098675847 acacagccaggttccaggttacaaggttattctgcttccgatcagataaa 098675896
102836585 ttctccacttgcttggaaactctcatcacctatttctttcttccccaaaa 102836634
>>>>>>>>> ||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||| >>>>>>>>>
098675897 ttctccacttgcttggaaactctaatcacctatttctttcttccccaaaa 098675946
102836635 atcctcctcccttttccctgcattgcagcctaggaagcacagcaactatt 102836684
>>>>>>>>> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||| >>>>>>>>>
098675947 atcctcctcccttttccctgcattgcagtctaggaagcacagcaactatt 098675996
102836685 tcaaaacaccaggggaccctttagtgctctgcaaacatggtgatcaggtt 102836734
>>>>>>>>> ||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >>>>>>>>>
098675997 tcaaaacaccacaggaccctttagtgctctgcaaacatggtgatcaggtt 098676046
102836735 acctttcaataaagatcatcagcctccacttccttaccttgagtagaaaa 102836784
>>>>>>>>> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >>>>>>>>>
098676047 acctttcaataaagatcatcagcctccacttccttaccttgagtagaaaa 098676096
102836785 caaaatctttttttttttttaaactttgggcacatggaaaggtaagtatt 102836834
>>>>>>>>> |||||||||||||||||| || ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >>>>>>>>>
098676097 caaaatctttttttttttata--ctttgggcacatggaaaggtaagtatt 098676144
102836835 tgcaaatgactggcatgggcaatgactgacaactcaggaaagacagacaa 102836884
>>>>>>>>> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||| >>>>>>>>>
098676145 tgcaaatgactggcatgggcaatgactgacaactcaggaaagacaggcaa 098676194
102836885 aaaatctccctgggaattagtagcagcaataagatagggtggaggagaag 102836934
>>>>>>>>> ||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| >>>>>>>>>
098676195 aaaatctccctgggagttagtagcagcaataagatagggtggaggagaag 098676244There are 11 base differences between the two genomes, 9 substitution mutations and one insertion/deletion (i.e. indel). This gives us an overall similarity of 97.25%.
How is this not objective?
That things fall down is subjective?
That things falling down and the orbit of the moon is due to gravity is consensus, and the opinion of someone who denies this is as valid as the consensus?
Philosophers could argue back and forth for centuries and not resolve whether matter is indefinitely divisible. That is subjective. Science acknowledges that people are subjective. That is the whole point of putting ideas to the test. Science says shut up already - try it and see what happens. Don’t guess, just measure the thing.
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
Richard P. Feynman.
What is your conclusion?
Whatever your answer, that is subjective.
That is not the point.
Any methodology is a philosophy.
You rphilosophy is to believe what you can see, measure or conclude.
Sorry, and all that.
Richard
So you have already decided it is subjective before seeing anything? Talk about a bias . . .
No just real.
All I am doing is trying to kock you off your high horse.
Richard
Yes, but do you have any better ideas?
That isn’t the point.
I am not claiming that the philosophy is false or inappropriate, only that it is a philosophy
And with it comes the subjectivity that scientists claim does not exist…
Also, it does not migrate to all of life, especially the spiritual side.
Richard
With respect, I don’t think it’s fair to “play the elitist card” when talking with people who have studied a field in depth, and may even have obtained an advanced degree, whether they be scientists or historians.
FWIW, I see @T_aquaticus answering many questions (made in both good and questionable faith) with patience and humility. That’s not my idea of elitist.
That is my 2 cents on a thread about attitudes toward scholarship 
.
I do wonder how science addresses this possibility experimentally
This thing cannot keep on going so that we are always going to discover more and more new laws. If we do, it will become boring that there are so many levels one underneath the other.
Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law
Whether the historian can admit the very real possibility that Israel was God’s uniquely elected nation makes for a good litmus test in my opinion
Certainly creation is fundamentally nonrandom from a theological point of view. But, as Ecclesiastes points out, we do not know that from looking at the physical evidence; the “under the sun” data alone merely leave us with a big question mark when it comes to ultimate meaning. Likewise, Genesis 1 tells us that the forces of nature are merely patterns in God’s creation; they do not have purposes or plans of their own. Thus, the study of these natural patterns is not the way to detect the purpose; ID’s “God hypothesis” approach is fundamentally off track. Of course, we may say “Hmm… There are patterns to everything, and we can understand them. Why is the universe that way?”, but the pattern does not answer that question. If we approach creation, already knowing about God, we know to praise Him for the wonder and glory and wisdom while trusting Him for the parts that don’t seem to make sense.
The statement that a particular component of creation, such as aspects of the process of evolution, are “random” should mean that our best formula for them, if we have a formula at all, is not adequate to predict between multiple possible outcomes. People often try to turn such “randomness” into a statement about ultimate cause [whether to deny the ultimate cause or to deny the apparent randomness], but the science cannot justify (nor disprove) such a claim.
In that pursuit you don’t seem to care if what you say is true.
It is subjectivity that you can’t even point to.
Show me the lie.
Yes I have.
IOW if you use your brain you are being subjective.
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.