Well, if they are honest scientists, they will say, 'this is beyond the scope of science'. Historical events are not subject to the scientific method. There are other methodologies for examining those, & none of them are repeatable, observable events. Those are one time events in a time line, & are not a scientific matter. Did hitler exist? Queen victoria? We cannot determine that by science, or even eyewitnesses. I don't know anyone who met hitler or victoria, but i believe they are valid historical figures. The criteria for one time events is not subject to the scientific method.. just like opinions about the supernatural.. we do not at this time have any way to verify any claims, scientifically. Well, your 'nonsensical, half baked supernatural ideas' is also not something that science can conclude. That is your OPINION. In matters of the supernatural, science is agnostic. It is not a dogmatic atheist, declaring, 'there is no god'. Science cannot prove a negative like this. The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. ~Eric Hoffer I would also add hitler, victoria, ceasar, lincoln, & any historical figure to your list. 'Scientific' evidence is not the same as historical evidence. That is a different methodology, & you cannot leap between them. Your list of leftist tenets are no more proven scientific facts than their antitheses. You try to show with evidence or arguments, but if the science is incomplete, like with agw, there can be no declaration of truth, as they have done with the anti-science propaganda. When does life begin? That could be addressed scientifically, but FIRST, you have to get your definitions. WHAT is life? That has to be defined, first, then the other question answered within the definition's parameters. Real science has a strict methodology, & there are more unknowns than knowns.. we might have a leaning one way or the other, but to dogmatically declare 'truth' is going way beyond what science can do. Only anti science can do that, & it does. I am not demeaning experts. Sure, ask them questions. If they can answer intelligently, with reason & evidence, the rest of us can figure it out. But the anti science trend is to promote 'expertism' over the scientific method. You should know that even among the experts there is a lot of disagreement. A consensus is impossible, in most scientific fields, even if truth was a democratic process. A friend of mine in the archeology field calls them 'arguologists'. Every 'expert' has a thesis, or a claim to fame that he will defend to the death, facts be damned! This is human nature, & is the reason scientists use the method, rather than voting on facts. Yes, researching facts & reality is often time consuming. But in matters of personal or collective importance, we had better take the time, rather than 'trust the experts'. If their only argument is one from authority, or bluff, or vague, obscure mumbo jumbo, our cynicism alerts should go off. We can examine the claims, then question whether the data is credible, the methodology sound, & the conclusions compelling. If my choices are, 'trust the expert' or 'wait until better information is available', i will choose the latter. I don't mind inconclusiveness.. i prefer that to dogmatic assertions on things OBVIOUSLY dictated with an agenda. The anti-science crowd uses assertion.. truth by mandate, not by discovery. Better for us to remain inconclusive, rather than leap on falsehoods masquerading as truth. There is a bit of dual definitions going on with the 'anti science' label. I am using it here in the classic sense.. that any offense of the scientific method is anti science. ..propaganda or opinions, shrouded in scientific terms.. THIS is the anti science i am addressing. But there is another.. it is the backlash on the scientific community for any dogmatic pronouncements, often exactly illustrating the first 'anti science' definition. When half baked theories are presented as proven facts, the credibility of the community fall into disrepute. People begin to doubt the experts, & question their 'facts'. The propagandists call this 'anti science' but it is in fact the opposite. People are not afraid of truth, or real science, but are not fooled by agenda driven propaganda, masked in scientific terms.