[Old_Mil]

It is obvious. Absolutely no scientific claim can be said to constitute "irrefutable empiric scientific truth". Only an individual who has never studied science would not know this.

Then the obvious conclusion is that most evolutionists have never studied science, because the vast majority certainly act in this way.

[Dimensio]

Then the obvious conclusion is that most evolutionists have never studied science, because the vast majority certainly act in this way.

Please provide a reference to support this claim.

[js1138]

Then the obvious conclusion is that most evolutionists have never studied science, because the vast majority certainly act in this way.

Give an example. Bear in mind that critics of evolution like Behe and Dembski's webmaster (if not Dembski himself) accept common descent as a fact. Common descent is as much a fact as the earth orbiting the sun.

All of the bits and pieces of evolution are facts -- a couple dozen varieties of mutation and DNA change, differential reproductive success, ERVs. There is no phenomenon required for evolution that has not been observed. Evolution has been observed in detail in the laboratory in reproducible experiments.

[Virginia-American]

..."irrefutable empiric scientific truth". ..

is not the same thing as "not yet refuted empiric scientific truth".

Nothing is science is "irrefutable", (although some theories, like kinetic gas theory or the germ theory of disease or the synthetic theory of evolution are so strongly supported that it is nearly impossible to imagine them being overthrown), but all currently-accepted theories have prevailed when people tried to refute them.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Then the obvious conclusion is that most evolutionists have never studied science, because the vast majority certainly act in this way.

Numbers on the table, please.