[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . pseudoscience clutches doggedly at ideas for their own sake.

All the more indication that a comparison between the sciences of evolution and astrology is not without foundation.

[Gumlegs]

I knew you were going to latch onto that, Fester, and I posted it because I wanted to make this point: Astrology is unchanged after a couple of thousand years. It has no new ideas at all. Its supposed mechanisms are no better understood than they were in ancient Babylon, and its predictions remain at the level of chance. It's as far from science as you can get.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory has changed as knowledge has increased. The usual creationist complaint is, "How come you keep changing it?? Can't you make up your minds??"

Are they both a problem, Fester -- evolutionary theory keeps changing and it keeps not changing? If you believe that, you're a doubleplusgood duckspeaker for sure!

Your point appears to be to miss the difference between a science that's old, but keeps changing as new discoveries are made (chemistry, biology, astronomy, evolution), with pseudoscience that hasn't made a single step forward in its history.

Nice cherry-picking, again. Want to try N-Rays and "Holy Ghost verification" this time?