In the first kind of account it may make sense to think what is desired is an empirically adequate theory, with the question of the truth of the theory at least temporarily bracketed. Still further, while some people argue that MN is an essential constraint on science, others dispute this: but can a serious dispute be settled just by citing a definition? Giving plausible necessary and sufficient conditions for science, therefore, is far from trivial; and many philosophers of science have given up on the demarcation problem, the problem of proposing such conditions. Once more, that's not easy to say. To cite the furor over intelligent design again, some say the proposition that there is an intelligent designer of the living world is religion, not science. 1.2 Religion If it is difficult to give an account of the nature of science, it is not much easier to say just what a religion is. Of course there are multifarious examples: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and many others. This is far from easy to say. Many conditions have been proposed as essential to science. According to. Jacques Monod, The cornerstone of the scientific method is the postulate that nature is objective. Even if the deceased agreed to donate, the family's objection will veto retrieval. The family's veto is in many countries, such as the US, the UK, and most nations of continental. We now turn to consider the proposals for reform listed above. Encourage or mandate clearer choices by the deceased According to some, an important cause of family refusal of organ retrieval is uncertainty about the wishes of the deceased. But is MN just part of the very nature of science as such? According to Isaac Newton, often said to be the greatest scientist of all time, the orbits of the planets would decay into chaos without outside intervention; he therefore proposed that God periodically adjusted their orbits.