The well-defined rules relate to the process, not the outcome. It's not "is your result acceptable within our ideology" or "does your result fit into our rules of what's allowable", it's "did you conduct the experiment in a valid manner so that other researchers can perform their own experiments to further test your hypothesis".

from http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml:
" The steps of the scientific method are to:

* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results"

One of the main purposes of communic...

The well-defined rules relate to the process, not the outcome. It's not "is your result acceptable within our ideology" or "does your result fit into our rules of what's allowable", it's "did you conduct the experiment in a valid manner so that other researchers can perform their own experiments to further test your hypothesis".

from http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml:
" The steps of the scientific method are to:

* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results"

One of the main purposes of communicating one's results is so that other people can perform their own experiments to further support or disprove the hypothesis.

It's essential in science that other people check one's results. The idea that scientists are in a cabal to protect each other and prevent people from examining their work is completely wrong -- scientists *want* other researchers to check their results. And if the results can be disproved, they want them to be disproved.

Also, it's false to say that evolution can't be observed or replicated.

"Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder ...

Also, it's false to say that evolution can't be observed or replicated.

"Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence *against* evolution."
from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

The idea that scientists are in a cabal to protect each other and prevent people from examining their work is completely wrong -- scientists *want* other researchers to check their results. And if the results can be disproved, they want them to be disproved.

Lexica, the ONLY point I am trying to make is this: is it impossible for human biasness to affect conclusions that are made. Is it?? I seem to recall an evolutionary scientist himself hiding evidence that actually disproved classical Darwinian evolution! Instead of presenting it to the scientific community for review, he decided to hide and ignore it because of his own biasness. That's the only point I'm maki...

The idea that scientists are in a cabal to protect each other and prevent people from examining their work is completely wrong -- scientists *want* other researchers to check their results. And if the results can be disproved, they want them to be disproved.

Lexica, the ONLY point I am trying to make is this: is it impossible for human biasness to affect conclusions that are made. Is it?? I seem to recall an evolutionary scientist himself hiding evidence that actually disproved classical Darwinian evolution! Instead of presenting it to the scientific community for review, he decided to hide and ignore it because of his own biasness. That's the only point I'm making, science is flawed as long as humans are the ones interpreting the evidence and the facts.