Nope, just relating a clear scientific observation.
just relating a clear scientific observation
"The seasons are the result of a tilt," is a scientific observation. The declaration that the tilt is "random" is a philosophical judgment based not on observation but on preconceived worldview that we might as well call "religion."
"Most likely due to a planetary collision" is a hypothesis. For a hypothesis to advance beyond a "just-so story," it has to be tested and retested by experiments. No amount of "most likely," "must be," "may have, "could be," etc. advances a hypothesis beyond speculation; only testing does this.
As this example illustrates, the seepage of philosophy into science can be subtle, but it jumps up and screams, "Here I am!" at us if we're alert.
Your affirmation of science is an affirmation of “order.”
Your use of language is an affirmation of “order.”
If you had any integrity, your comment would have instead been, “slr lwew lrkuo awllawl awl11 o.” That would have been much more in line with your affirmation of chaos ...