[connectthedots]

Maths OTOH is qualitatively different from *all* the natural sciences, because it doesn't have to cope with the natural world so it can deal with concepts like "axioms" and "proofs". Natural sciences cannot do that.

I am not the one who claimed that evolutionism is comparable to mathematics; quite the opposite.

[Thatcherite]

I am not the one who claimed that evolutionism is comparable to mathematics; quite the opposite.

In truth I overstated my case (with respect to math being more solid than other sciences). Natural sciences are not comparable with Mathematical Analysis, but that is only really a sub-field of math, and not the most useful field for the other sciences. Much of math rests on shakier foundations, and Godel proved that the usefulness of axiomatic systems in representing the real world is finite.

I note that you didn't address the main thrust of my response at all.