from http://www.livescience.com/15530-mu...ter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=LS_08162011 "It brings the idea of eternal inflation and bubble collisions into the realm of testable science," said research team member Daniel Mortlock, an astrophysicist at Imperial College London. "If it's not testable, it's hard to even call it science." This is what I have concluded since I read about Carl Popper and Wittgenstein. Popper said something to the effect that "(a scientific theory) can't be accepted as as true unless it can be falsified." If we think something is true, what sort of data or experiment might show that we are wrong? If there is no test, it isn't a "scientific" conclusion but an "artistic" conclusion or a matter of faith. "History" refers specifically to written material. Ancient written material can be countered by other ancient written material thus such investigations at least can be called soft science. But stories about beginnings involve pre-historic times which is why we call them "myth," neither false nor true. Some myths can be falsified, such as the world resting on the back of a large elephant or the moon being made of green cheese. But there is no way to falsify any pre-flood myth. Same with the history of genetic evolution. It is cheap to say that this critter evolved from that critter. DNA evidence could could demonstrate one side of a such an argument or the other but the DNA doesn't exist. But real time DNA studies of very small and some not so small critters do exist and are "scientific" according to Popper's original statements. They can be falsified.