Well, Snail-guest, there was no editing mistake, I assure you. I put my version alongside yours as it represents the natural, logical converse of what you yourself said. Now let's take a look at this little gem: It seems that he no longer considers evolution...to be a theory and, therefore, not part of science.

"Therefore"? Dearie me. So science is all theories and nothing else. Well that isn't very brave, is it. Science is about seeking the truth. If we can never be brave enough to say that we've found some truth, then what's the point of doing science at all? There is a lot more science to be done in the field of evolution. We don't know all there is to know about it and almost certainly never will. But there is a nugget of truth in there. The evidence we have that points to evolution taking place is massive and is incontrovertible. Evolution definitely takes place. Only religious nutters with their eyes, ears and brains tight shut deny it. The precise mechanisms and what drives them are still being studied and always will be. But the nugget of truth is that evolution happens. That much is true. The theory of evolution by natural selection takes in far more than this nugget, which is why I can only say that (the theory of) evolution is true in its general thrust. I think I must have typed that phrase, which you conveniently ignore and which thoroughly immunises me against accusations of dogma, about a dozen times. If you don't agree that (the theory of) evolution is true, in its general thrust, let's hear your evidence. If you think that science isn't about looking for truth, let's have that as well. There is in my garden a fig tree. I can provide incontrovertible evidence for it. I can give you the grid ref., take photos of it, get you round to see it if you doubt me, get independent experts in to confirm its presence, show you the deeds to prove that it's my garden and not someone else's, get its DNA sampled to confirm that it is a fig tree and not something else... After all that, I say that it's true that there's a fig tree in my garden. Anyone who thinks it's not true will have an uphill struggle to counteract all my evidence (in fact, it would be an impossibility). I'm happy to use the word "true", by the way, in the way I'm accustomed to using it even if there are philosophical pedants who think I'm misusing the word (poor things). When I'm down the pub telling you that I have a fig tree, I'm not being dogmatic. I might have trouble persuading you that I'm not being dogmatic, but I have the evidence to show that I'm not. The tree is really there. That's where we are with evolution. Exactly that. Now the evidence for the tree's presence is incontrovertible, but if you were to ask me how it got there, how long the seed took to germinate, how the soil in my garden affects its growth, how the cold snap last winter affected it, how long it will live, whether it will produce seed true to type...well I can't answer those questions now, but they are all vulnerable to further research. I would be overreaching myself if I told you that I understood all there is to know about my tree, but I do know that it's true that it's there in my garden. I got to that point not by being dogmatic but by evidence and reason. That's where we are with evolution. If you don't agree that evolution, in its general thrust, is true, let's have it. Otherwise Mr Thicky here (aka me) doesn't really get what you're supposed to be arguing about.