Well that's the scientific method isn't it. If you come up with evidence that goes against the currently accepted theory, then the original theory has to be rejected and a new theory written (rather than the evidence being rewritten). And that's what scientists do all the time, they have to leave their pet theory behind, and man up, admit they hadn't got things quite right and move on, and come up with a new way of explaining things.

So this is great, bring on your evidence. And if when it's reviewed by other people (this being also part of the scientific method), and it supports whatever new theory you'll be setting out, then hoorah.

But if you don't think it should be treated like scientific evidence, then that's fine isn't it*. but just say so?

*see Sanctuary's 'you can't measure love' comment.

New evidence doesn't change previous errors .

As R says , bring it on and we'll see .

Each case should be considered on it's own meriits/demerits .

I doubt many things that I would love to proved wrong about and couldn't care less about agendas ,all that matters is the quality of the theory , not what it is about .