[Coyoteman]

...is because *evidence* must always be interpreted metaphysically.

Evolution is metaphysical

I posted this already, but you obviously don't agree, so here we go again.

From a google search, "Define:Metaphysical":

• pertaining to or of the nature of metaphysics; "metaphysical philosophy"
• without material form or substance; "metaphysical forces"
• highly abstract and overly theoretical; "metaphysical reasoning"
• Literally, beyond the physical realm, beyond that which we can realize or discover with our five senses. Also, a branch of philosophy which studies the “beingness” or inherent nature of reality.
• Pertaining to realities which are outside those of science, such as cosmology and ontology.
• It means that which is beyond what can be grasped by the senses. The term comes from Aristotle, who meant by it some form of theological philosophy, but it means something else in today's world. The modern media often use the word to mean the same thing as 'spiritual'. There is lots of overlap, but the two words refer to different things. 'Spiritual' refers to the realm of spirits. 'Metaphysical' refers to that which underlies everything, of which spirits are a part. ...

You are calling everything metaphysical. That is not accurate. If you read these definitions "metaphysical" takes over beyond the normal way of looking at things: "highly abstract and overly theoretical" or "beyond the physical realm" or "realities which are outside those of science" (but I don't agree with the examples given) or "beyond what can be grasped by the senses."

Science stays away from the metaphysical as much as possible. I think you just hate evolution so much that you are blasting away at the scientific method and all modern learning based on it in an effort to avoid having to deal with apes for ancestors.

[GourmetDan]

You posted it before and I responded before:

"You post a definition that applies directly to the metaphysical nature of evolution and then merely pretend that it doesn't. Course, none of the little evos will 'get it' cause you told them what to think with your glib remark.

So what part of that definition did you not understand?

Do we need to go over the difference between *evidence* and 'interpretations of evidence' again?"

I'm not calling everything metaphysical, although I understand your need to characterize it as such to avoid admitting to the truth.

True science stays totally away from the metaphysical. It describes what can be observed and does not venture into speculations on unobservable past events. You are confused about what is science and what is not.

I'm all in favor of the scientific method has nothing at all to do with 'apes for ancestors'. That's pure metaphysics.

Again, I understand why you need to characterize my position as though it is 'against the scientific method'. You need to characterize it as such in order to preserve your mental paradigm.