"Science obviously embodies assumptions, but the question is whether working science requires formal philosophy, and the answer is no."
Ok. I see. Maybe YOU can help with a helpful link which elaborates a bit more on that 'no'? And, maybe also a link which discusses why so many irrational folks out there, maybe like me, are susceptible to believing the answer is indeed yes. I mean, I have asked this before, if 'science' was so robust, why do so few embrace its central themes, despite the fire hose of data thrown at them?
As Barbie might say, the central themes in science involve math, and math is hard.
How many people are capable of clearly defining relativity? quantum theory?
I have been participating in these threads for several years and have yet to see an evolution critic who could give a clear summary of how evolution works.
Else why would we be continuously be bombarded with demands for examples of individuals creatures giving birth to offspring of a new species.
This is just pure, gut wrenching ignorance of the subject being debated.