Scientifically Demonstrable . . . Sort of
Acai berries and pomegranate juice are great for you! You have to load up on Vitamin D! Bi-lateral symmetry is the key to mate selection across species (including humans)!Or, in order, it is a scam, taking a supplement can really mess you up, and, indeed, those of us who look less than perfect can find a great wife and produce healthy offspring. Should you drink red wine or really strong coffee (for health benefits, that is, for pure enjoyment the answer is obviously “yes”)? One year the answer seems to be “no,” the next you get a different answer.
Apparently all these flip-flops are not just caused by media oversensationalization. Scientific results are very frequently not, well, scientific. That is, replicable by others. In fact, some “proven results” cannot be reproduced even by he original researchers. A fascinating article in the New Yorker by Jonah Lehrer lays all this out. I will let you read the essay; essentially, it gives lie to the notion that “science” proves things to be “true” or “false.” Rather (and I know this will be shocking to some who think that “post-modernism” is evil), the researcher cannot not influence the results. You find what you are looking for. From the concluding paragraph:
We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.
This spins out all kinds of consequences — both positive and negative. It is not, of course, that all science is bunk (nuclear fission actually happens, for example). But I think we can be less worked up about some recent “science” on things like “The God Gene.” But we should also be hesitant to use “science” ourselves — how do you “prove” the Flood, Jesus walking on water, or the Resurrection? Do we really want to base our faith on what we “prove”?