"Science is at least objective and testable."
Why do people think this entity called "science" exists? "Science
is" really means "scientists are." Thus, are scientists always
objective? Nope. Is the community of scientists always objective?
Nope. Now, I will grant that when scientists deal with regularities
that can be detected directly, objectivity does seem to exist.
But when the topic concerns historical events that involve layers
of assumptions and indirect inferences, and which seem to
involve implications beyond the field of science, objectivity becomes very
fuzzy.
As for the testable: Again, as far as regularities and direct detection
go, one can apply very rigorous standards of testability. But when we
start getting into the ancient history stuff, the standards of testability are
not nearly as rigorous. For example, most scientists probably think
something like photosynthesis arose through neo-darwinian mechanisms.
What tests did they use to determine this and what results strongly
support this claim?
Mike