Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[GrandizerII]

Not at all. You erroneously think theories don't need to be well-established. We don't agree!

Well right, I already said that's the part we don't agree on lol. To me, it doesn't make sense how you think a theory can be wrong and well-established at the same time. If theories remain theories despite evidence against them, and they're not demoted, they're clearly not well-established.

Something could be well-established, and based on solid evidence, and still be shown to be wrong at the end (through new evidence and such) ...

Now I have to teach you logic as well?