[tmobmobfil]

And then there was Karl Popper.

He said that the hallmark of scientific theories is that these are falsifiable. You can prove them wrong by empirical evidence. A theory that is not amenable to falsification is not a scientific theory. Thus he gave a method for demarcation of scientific and non-scientific theories. This is the Popperian wisdom.

Then once a journalist of science called John Horgan once interviewed Popper for Scientific American.

Is your theory ( of demarcation of scientific theories) falsifiable? Popper leaned forward and put his hand on Horgan's hand and said, "I do not want to hurt you - that is a silly question - my theory is not a theory of science".

Cute.

an idea that amuses me very much is that human kind in their vanity may struggle vainly and haughtily

to develop a 'theory of everything' and get one that is very close to the truth.

and just like the story of the tower of Babel, how Allah brought the vain people low ...

just as they are congratulating themselves Allah could say 'BE' and with that be all the apparent physical laws of science

(which are only Allah's habit anyway)

would change and their whole great pyramid of scientific assumptions, built up over the centuries, would collapse

and no experimental physical results would be the same as before

all physical, biological and chemical theories would then become wrong

(as everything would be happening by different apparent "means")

and they would have to start again from the very foundations of science

to understand these new 'laws of nature'

the true physical scientists would be fascinated by this amazing change

but the ones like Dawkins, who turn science into a form of idolatry

their height of their vanity having lead them to the most terrible of falls

falls that their inflated ego's could not cope with

no longer could they explain anything as they could before

and they would be found in many lands hanging from trees in parks

or slumped over their desks amidst a pile of pills