The fight over Darwin - Teaching evolution in schools

[appolose]

Final-Fan said:
GAAAAAAHH

Only one of your supposed observations is actually an observation. The other (first one) is a theory that you claim is not contraindicated by the observation.

Your argument, essentially, is that since the theory is true then the observation must result in another theory involving the supernatural.

Also please read my edit if you haven't.

[edit:  just to be totally clear, when I thought of "assumed" I was thinking "they take that going forward as true until something causes them to suspect it might not be", not "that is taken as gospel truth from that day forth never to be questioned again even if it leads to appolose thinking he's found a provably supernatural event".]

This makes absolutely no sense.  When ever have I said the latter?  How is the former contradicting my argumen?  The 2nd observation does not make science suspect it's wrong.  It only does that if there is contradictory or counter-observations at hand.  I never said science would not reverse a theory.  In this case, science has no reason todo that at all: It eliminated the physical as a cause "in theory", so it affirms the nonphysical as cause, "in theory".  That does not need to be tested for if you've already eliminated all other possible options.

"This statement makes absolutely no sense from the perspective of science. You do not know what you are talking about. Observation never "becomes" theory. People make a theory based on observation".

You seem to have forgotten what I meant by that:

"after a number of "I have seen this", it becomes a "This always is""

To bring in Rath's objection: "Basically the way science looks at it is that anything that is not directly observed may be false".

Not at all; if it, "in theory", eliminates something as cause, then it "in theory" must be whatever is not what was eliminated.  In this case, that which was eliminated was physical, therefore, whatever the cause is "in theory" must be supernatural.