Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Abaddon_ire]

"...Laws don't work in science because laws deal with fixed and fully known situations."

Explain this portion; what exactly is your position on laws? I'm not sure I understand.

Sure you don't. Fukkit.

Newtons laws were a good approximation for gravity at the time. Einstein went way beyond that and established more accurate 
"laws". Someone might well exceed Einstein and establish more accurate laws still. Science is not a scripture of holy writ, like the stupid boble. It changes over time as knowledge increases.

Does that mean Newton was wrong? No. It simply means Newton was approximately correct. Approximations which are still in use today, because they are close enough for various applications to be useful. Like satellites that provide the planet with TV.

And there is your religion emerging. Science does not deal in absolutes. When new evidence rocks up, science changes to accommodate that new evidence.Religion not only fails to do that, it actively refuses to do that

And that is where your thinking is stuck. In 2,000 year old mythology (or older) refusing to ever learn anything.

Science claims that it is always provisional on the available evidence. Religion claims that it is eternal and can never change.

Get that nonsense out of your head. Science accepts new verifiable evidence and changes accordingly. You don't.

You think a scientific theory is just some WAG. That is not the case even remotely.

You think a scientific "law" is immutable. That is not the case even remotely.

I am starting to suspect you are really a child.