A theory must explain the data. Data must be intelligible. Intelligibility cannot exist apart from design. Design cannot exist apart from order. Order can exist on the basis of only two possibilities I can conceive of: intelligent causation or unintelligent causation. Perhaps you'd care to suggest a third. Either way, science must proceed under one or the other assumptions, yet it has no way I know of to test the empirical veracity of either one.
Which assumption do you reckon the Royal Society operates under? Which one do you prefer to see outlawed in public schools, O "champion of academic freedom?"
Thank you for demonstrating the accuracy of the one sentence of mine you were able to quote, "You have again ignored all the tests a theory must meet to be considered science."
Which assumption do you reckon the Royal Society operates under? Which one do you prefer to see outlawed in public schools, O "champion of academic freedom?"
What difference does it make, Fester? You'd only ignore the answer.