[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding essay-post! And thank you all for your insights in the sidebar that followed.

I find it particularly telling that, once again, the focus of the rebuttal to your and hosepipe's assertion, is not directed to the substance of the argument but rather the (presumed) agenda of the poster. That tactic is typical in the never-ending Intelligent Design v. Evolution debates.

But it is merely a "spitwad" - a straw man or redirect - something posters use when they have no real ammunition. Chalk one up for our side.

The short answer: Logic and reason, the same "tests" that scientists use. Don't forget: the natural sciences are first-born of philosophy; the subdiscipline of epistemology is particularly strongly emphasized. (What do we know? How do we know it? How do we know we know it?)

This is the inescapable bottom line: How do we know that we know it?

Science is to philosophy as a child is to his father. He might run away from home, condemn and deny his father but he cannot make his lineage not be true.

[betty boop]

I find it particularly telling that, once again, the focus of the rebuttal to your and hosepipe's assertion, is not directed to the substance of the argument but rather the (presumed) agenda of the poster.

And yet I do not have a clue why Coyoteman is "yelling at me." I mean, he continually enthuses about the joys of "evidence." And heaps scorn on theists for cognizing things that he doesn't think exist simply because they are undetectable by the scientific method (methodological naturalism or, in the extreme cases, metaphysical naturalism).

So to put it crudely: Okay, God is "undetectable" by physical means. But by the very same standard, so is the Common Ancestor so beloved to Darwin's evolution theory.

Robert Herrmann usefully points out that "Direct evidence for the existence of postulated entities means that the entities directly impinge upon human or machine sensors." Neither God nor the Common Ancestor qualifies in terms of this criterion.

So on what basis can we say, speaking as scientists, that the theory of divine Creation is in any way "inferior" to the theory of the Common Ancestor in accounting for the facts of reality (in particular, for the rise of life and its articulation in the biological diversity we see all around us)?

Both theories rest on indirect evidence. The question is: Which one best accounts for the evolution of the universe? (Not just the biota.)

I'd love to explore this problem further, in due course, if anyone's interested in pursuing it....

Thank you oh so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your kind thoughts and encouragements!