Reply #13: Sorry, s4p, I think trotsky has you nailed, and here's why: [View All]

[darkstar3]

1. In post #4, you attempt to conflate two very different meanings of the word 'theory'. Evolution is a scientific theory, which means that it is a hypothesis that has been thoroughly and repeatedly tested, over and over and over again. That is the meaning of a scientific theory. The meaning that you attempt to conflate with this is the vernacular form of the word, which equates the concepts of scientific theory and hypothesis, thereby making a distinction impossible.

2. In post #4, you muddy the definition of the word truth. Your statement that although it cannot possibly be a scientific assertion, it is nevertheless of great importance in the history of mathematical logic sets up a false definition of "truth' as something that is simply important. You are confusing the words "truth", "truism", and "reasonable approximation."

3. The real problem Comfort and his ilk have with theories like evolution is probably that they do not believe material and natural phenomena cover all the bases of human experience. In my view, that is a defensible philosophical stance, though very ineptly attended by Comfort.
emphasis mine
I have two points here. Your first sentence is a defense of Comfort's of the "God of the gaps" argument, and an oversimplification of what Comfort is doing. Your second sentence is somewhat intellectually dishonest and gives Comfort a leg to stand on. Why? Because by conveniently omitting the fact that Comfort has jumped from "we haven't explained everything with science yet" to "God did what we haven't explained," and then stating that Comfort's position is 'a defensible philosophical stance', you let Comfort and his backers have all the wiggle room they need, and do a disservice to the term philosophy.

So, yeah, trotsky stated nothing but the truth when he said that Comfort gets his wiggle room from people like you.

Edit: clarity