Steve Shaw

"Mudcat ate my cookie"? I wish mudcat was a Frenchman who ate snails!

A good, Shavian start.

For your information, oh thou who art scared of truth, Richard Dawkins has said that evolution is true on several occasions, so what's all this "brushing aside" bollox!

Unfortunately, he does, thus opening up the path for accusations of evolutionism from the creationists. I quoted Dawkins writing in support of falsifiability. You ignored it. You only brush Dawkins aside when he's saying things that don't fit your ideas. I quoted Darwin directly. You ignored it and attributed to him things he did not say. As for Popper, Einstein and the rest, phooey! Steve Shaw knows best.

Yes, the philosophy of science is an interesting area without which science would lose its base,[Promising!] but science has also got to be a tad pragmatic (otherwise it would disappear up its own philosophical arsehole instead of moving on for the good of mankind and the natural world), and the pragmatic side of me tells me that there is no doubt worth contemplating (which is not quite the same as no doubt whatsoever) that evolution happens,

Excellent! The penny is finally beginning to drop. That's quite a shift from -

It is a declaration of the self-evident, as in "one's left testicle is to the left of one's right testicle, unless one happens to be viewing them from the front, in which case vice versa". There, not a modicum of science in that lot. An immutable truth applying to all twin-betesticled bilaterally-symmetrical individuals since the dawn of time, no science needed to make it true.

Oh dear. Just when things were going so well -
If you disagree, do apprise us of your demurrals, with full reasons. Do you not think that evolution happens? Do you think that someone, some day, will come up with a convincing counter-explanation?

Listen carefully, Steve. I have never said evolution isn't true. I do not have any problem with evolution or Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Recently your co-messiah said "I see evidence for evolution all over the place. Or at least. (And this is the clincher) I observe what is explained by no alternative theory." I entirely agree. Have this done up in cross stitch and hung over your bed. Have it tattooed on your scrotum which you seem to take such delight at gazing upon. This isn't about whether or not "Evolution is true.", it's about how science works. If you want evolution and Darwin's Theory of Evolution to be part of science, they have to obey the rules, they have to abide by the underlying philosophy. You aren't just being pragmatic, you are actively opposed to the philosophy of science. You tried to argue that Popper was wrong! Who the @$£&^%! do you think you are? This is about whether to choose science or religion. It is about whether to choose reason or faith. I have quoted Jack Cohen before but it's worth saying again - "Some people think that science is about knowing things. It isn't, it's about not knowing things. Knowing we leave to religion." Make up your mind which side you are on.

Ultimately, Gastropodus stalkerissimus, are you actually a closet creationist?

Getting a bit desperate aren't you Steve? I could hardly ask for a more definite sign that you know you've lost the argument.