[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If science is not accountable, reproducible, verifiable by double-blinds, demonstrable, hangs by that thread of cruel anxiety...it's not important."

Then you have just discounted a very large amount of legitimate science, on a whim. What is important is that science is testable and that it makes predictions. Double blind? That's not for most sciences.

" Everyone loves a story. Cosmologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, evolutionists--tell great stories. Some are plausible, many are entertaining, a few provoke insight.

None are scientists."

Says you... because, well, you just like to say it. They are testable and have predictive power. Creationism/ID on the other hand.... now that's a just-so claim.

" If they are not ultimately responsible for what they posit, they are only spinning tales."

What does it mean to be *ultimately responsible*?

"Look what happens when an evolutionary notion is debunked after a better notions comes along--nobody dies from a bad reaction, no bridge falls down, no piece of shuttle garbage explodes."

Ideas get discarded for better ones in every science. That's how it grows. You condemn all of science to irrelevancy if you expect it to be some kind of static world-view.

[Mamzelle]

re: What does it mean to be *ultimately responsible*?)))

Science is not science unless it can be wrong.

Stories cannot be wrong, they can only be bad.

A scientist invests in a position, a hyposthesis, only to find it's garbage. Hence, "cruel." Which is why, in some cases, you have to be careful of what a scientist says. His hypothesis is sometimes his baby and he wants to protect it. That's why reproducibilty is so important.