[Right Wing Professor]

I am downright stating that it is unscientific to present a philosophy as closed case science when one has undertaken only cursory verification of the propositions he is given to believe.

So, Fester, I have done quite detailed and extensive checking of said propositions. That would mean that I can present evolution as closed case science, no?

And I have also offered to lead you through the process. That would mean that you too, could present it as closed case science, but are prevented from doing so only by laziness or indolence.

So your position seems to be nothing more than advocacy of biblical literalism on the grounds that exploration of a contrary philosophy would entail your getting off your couch.

Gee, that's really admirable.

[b_sharp]

Apparently I have to disbelieve you and run all the tests you've ever run before I can trust your findings. I guess I should start right away. What's the first one I should do?

[Fester Chugabrew]

I have done quite detailed and extensive checking of said propositions. That would mean that I can present evolution as closed case science, no?

No. Science by nature is not a "case closed" practice, a point that seems to elude you and your cheerleaders to no end. It seems that with some points of view (namely intelligent design) your notion of science is so narrow as to demand only the tightest strictures, while with other points of view (that suit your fancy) reasonable conjecture is as good as science. You are conflicted. Discombobulated. Biased. One-way. Unreasonable by insisting your point of view is alone worthy of consideration both scientifically and philosophically.

"Quite detailed?" What does that mean? How much is "quite?"