"I did not say "compatible." Don't put words in my mouth. Logical fallacies, like bad theories, are part and parcel of science."
So in other words... logical fallacies are compatible with science.
"When the volume of evidence supports a theory to a large degree, is it "arguing from incredulity" to say the theory has been substantiated?"
No, because the argument from incredulity has nothing to do with this example. It is logical to say a theory has been substantiated when it has a lot of evidence to support it. ID isn't science because it has NO evidence to support it, and it is completely untestable, it makes no predictions. ID is an argument from incredulity, it's a gutless choice, a surrender.
""Why, how could anyone possibly say this theory is a bad theory when so much evidence supports it?" Well, put your pet theory of evolution in there, and let's see why the whole world should believe it without "arguing from incredulity."
Now you're just being dense. If the evidence supports a theory then it is a good theory. And I see you have no clue as to what the *argument from incredulity* is. You are using for anything and everything. Kind of like the way you want to include anything and everything into science until science has no meaning.
"Looks like the theory of evolution is built on a logical fallacy. That is, if you want to reduce science to the practice of pure, formal logic."
?? Are you on drugs? What logical fallacy? You just made that up. Are you REALLY this dense?
1. I can't imagine how P could possibly be false
2. Therefore, P.
A simple variation on this is
1. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true
2. Therefore, not-P.
That pretty much sums up arguments against intelligent design. "It's not scientific."
Your blather is woefully transparent.
I'm still waiting to hear your scientific alternative to intelligent design as causative of organized matter.