Snail hath quothed: Actually, I think trying to promote a better understanding of science is a very useful thing to be doing.

Of course. But you're not going to promote much of an understanding by preachifying your falsifiability stuff and other philosophical ramblings in a thread that is read mostly by non-specialists, nor are you going to promote much of an understanding by constantly nit-picking with a bloke you basically agree with on the substance. You will promote a better feeling of here-he-comes-again boredom, that's all.

Good. I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to address the points that I have raised.

You see, the great thing about these internet forum doodahs is that you can either respond or not respond. Had I taken umbrage at all the people who had not responded to something I'd said I'd have slit me bloody own throat yonks ago. You really don't get to insist that I respond to all your minutiae, especially when you are in hector-mode, repeating your nigglings over and over again. I'm a busy fellow, you know. I get accused one minute of taking on stuff head-on, and the next minute of being evasive. Relax, babe. And reflect on the fact that you'll have it back whatever I say. There is a limit to how much time I can spend with you. I have Wacko to consider as well, you know.

I'm asking you to think outside your oft repeated doctrines. I'm asking you to consider (as all scientists must) the possibility that you are wrong.

I have no doctrines. I am unsure about everything. But evolution is true. It's all around you, going on right now. It's why we're here and it's lovely. If you think that's a doctrine, then tell me where it isn't true.

Without the philosophy that underlies science what is it that you think distinguishes science from religion?

The only "philosophy" I can think of right now is that science is predicated on evidence and religion is not. Do tell me if I need more. I'm sure you will. But I might be a bit busy this week.