Let's ask a question that is made obvious by the "framing science" thread running on this forum at this time.
What is the level of certainty of the scientific community at large with respect to the following theories?
1. Evolution by natural selection.
2. Generation of novel phenotypical characteristics that contribute to individual fitness through random alteration of genetic material in the breeding population, directly or indirectly.
3. Abiogenesis, by natural chemical and physical means.
4. Creation of the Solar System by natural cosmic physical means.
5. Initial creation of the universe by natural physical means.
I contend that the level of acceptance among the scientific community for the LEAST certain of these theories is at least 80%, constituting in legal terms a "clear showing," well beyond "preponderance of the evidence" necessary for a verdict in a civil trial, and well beyond "substantial and credible" needed for impeachment hearings; a "clear showing" is sufficient to obtain a preliminary injunction from a judge, requiring that someone cease and desist an activity unless or until a verdict in their favor shows that what they are doing is not a violation of another's rights. In the absence of a verdict in their favor, whether that does not come because they do not go to trial, or because the verdict in the trial is against them, they cannot continue that activity without being in contempt of court, at which point the judge in question will sanction them, up to and including imprisonment if necessary.
In the case of the second theory, I contend that the level of acceptance among the scientific community is at least 90%, constituting "very likely" in scientific terms, "clear and convincing" evidence in legal terms, sufficient to separate a child from a parent accused of a crime against the child permanently with only the right of appeal.
In the cases of the first and fourth theories, I assert that the level of certainty rises to better than 99%, sufficient evidence in a court of law to sentence an individual to death. I don't think more need be said to express this level of certainty.
That means that only abiogenesis and the initial creation of the universe are questionable even to the extent of a one-in-five chance that they are incorrect; and at best, there is a four out of five chance that our understanding of them is correct. For the remainder of these theories, assertion of "scientific uncertainty" is obfuscation, which an impartial and honest judge sitting on the bench judging cases would very properly and without chance of overturn on appeal either render judgment against or instruct a jury to ignore.
I don't think that unless substantial and credible evidence can be presented to overturn my assertions that there is any further need to discuss this.
