Now that this thread has re-emerged and the self styled scientists are attempting to engage in rational debate with the irrational, I can reply to Steve's "You patronising twat! post.

Steve Shaw
Christ on a bloody bike, what on earth is the matter with you!

Do you think I am making this all up just to annoy you? This is Philosophy of Science 101. It's the sort of stuff you do as a first year undergraduate. Did you skip a few lectures or did you take your degree so long ago that you predated all the thinking of the mid-twentieth century?

The point of science is to close in on those areas in which we lack knowledge.

Er, no Steve, it is to close in on those areas in which we lack understanding. The point of science is to build a coherent set of theories/models/rules that explain, as far as possible, the world we see around us. Knowledge by itself is not science.

Science sets out to disprove nothing. I don't know how old you are, or how long your alleged science career has lasted, but there is something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of the process of scientific enquiry if you think that it sets out to prove or disprove anything at all.

You are quite right to say that science does not set out to prove anything. That is why statements like "If so much knowledge accumulates that a particular theory can no longer be denied then we have found some truth." don't fit in with science. Discovering a new variety of the Barnsley Fern may advance our knowledge but doesn't advance our understanding without asking what makes it different and why it is different. I am reminded of Lord Kelvin's quip "Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting.". Unfair, but a good line. You and pete could look at the same pile of evidence; he would see God and you would see Evolution. It is what you do with that evidence that differentiates Science and Religion.

there is something fundamentally wrong with your understanding of the process of scientific enquiry

I've studied it as a subject. You seem to have no understanding at all if you think it's just evidence, evidence and more evidence. Try this http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html. The odd hiccup but not bad. It's directed at teachers so you shouldn't find it too demanding.

Target audience", eh? You patronising twat!

I'm not sure quite what your problem is here (apart from your recurring Tourette's Syndrome). The vast majority of people are not religious fundamentalists nor are they thoroughly educated in science. They do (in some countries anyway) have the vote. They are the people we need to win over in the fight for reason over superstition. Arguing with pete is futile. Even if you make him see the error of his ways, so what? The people we need to reach are the uncommitted majority. Kelvin had another good quote "An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.". If you just stand at the bar and shout "Evolution is TRUE you £$%!"$%$ stupid %$^£$%£$." in her face, she'll go off and serve another customer (who might be pete).

Me: Steve's misrepresentation of science as a sort of alternative to religion

Steve: Do demonstrate where I've ever done that.

Every time you say something like "Evolution is true". Every time you engage with pete in a way which suggests there is some equivalence between his arguments and yours. Every time you fail to produce a coherent argument against anyone who disagrees with you and think that cursing and swearing will win the day.

In an earlier post you said -
Richard Dawkins, a far greater evolutionary biologist than you or I could ever hope to be, a man who will tell you that he can't be certain that God doesn't exist, says that evolution is true.

Indeed he does. Worrying. Just because he's greater than you or I doesn't mean he's greater than other evolutionary biologists. It's hard to tell if he has done any actual science since he found himself a nice little earner as an atheist tele-evangelist. He rarely seems to appear on platforms with other scientists. Here's one occasion when he did - Dawkins vs. Tyson.

You said "So why don't you just bugger off, stop being so stultifyingly annoying and go and look stuff up. I did.. Did you? Have you looked up Karl Popper? Falsifiability? The scientific method? Give it a try, you might find it interesting.

Bryan Creer BSc. Hons. (Sussex), BSc (OU), MSc (Soton)