Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Anomalocaris]

"Well-supported" isn't fine, but we can at least count the number of papers in support of a theory to categorize it as such. We can't do that with "well-established."

I saw the essential bit; and its questionable. For example, what do you call pre-theories awaiting to be "well-supported" to become full fledged theories? In my personal experience, I've only been taught how to deduce hypotheses from theories, never these pre-theories, does it work the same way? And again, how many supporting papers need to be published for a pre-theory to become a scientific theory?

All of this just to continue to defend your argument that "space pixies" is a valid theory?

That,s desperate, man.

Pretending not to understand shit that is being spoon fed to you, and lying about your religious views in your profile would certainly meet the criteria. You’re walking the line right now. Consider this your one and only friendly, informal warning.

Lovely power move lol.

---

Also, he seems to be attaching sentience to nature when that's not what natural selection suggests at all.

Nature doesn't actively throw dice until something good happens. Rather, stuff happens naturally, and then just by random chance, something comes up that just happens to work really well (compared to something else), and because of that will be more pronounced than that something else and dominate. Very abstract and simplistic but hopefully should put him in the right direction instead of thinking that Mother Nature is a literal sentient being.

I'm glad we agree mother nature isn't a sentient being.

Agree that god is also not a sentient or benevolent being and your intellect would have made the first significant  positive progress since when it adapted itself to potty training.