RE: Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)
August 7, 2019 at 7:21 pm
(This post was last modified: August 7, 2019 at 7:26 pm by GrandizerII.)
(August 7, 2019 at 7:10 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(August 7, 2019 at 6:16 pm)Grandizer Wrote: That's a big if there, bud. If X had all the characteristic of being a theory, it would be a theory. No shit.
Obviously, and we have to assume that it does. That's why we called it the theory of space pixies. Your disagreement is based solely on the name.
Again, in what way is the pixies "theory" anything like the atomic theory or the theory(ies) of evolution? What solidly substantiates the pixies "theory" from the evidence we have and the observations we can make? What are the "pawn hypotheses" corresponding to the "theory" (just going by how you wrongly view hypotheses and theories)? What predictions can it make that we can test? How exactly does a "theory" that incorporates fantasy entities be on par with legit scientific theories?