[exDemMom]

Logical deduction is firmly based in a person's philosophy. If I believe that the Easter Bunny leaves candy eggs on Easter morning and I go out and see candy eggs on Sunday morning, I will logically deduce that the Easter Bunny left them. The evolutionary bias in 'science' is as firmly based on philosophy as is belief in the Easter Bunny.

Oy. There isn't a speck of logical deduction contained within your "example". Anyone can say anything happened as a result of some arbitrary belief, but that does not come even remotely close to being a logical proof. You actually have to have supporting evidence.

Logical deductions are always based on philosophical beliefs.

Given this statement, and your other post in which you described science as being philosophical mumbo-jumbo and philosophy as having a logical evidentiary basis, I am left with only two logical possibilities here. Either you really do have an extraordinarily muddled understanding of both philosophy and science, or you are what is popularly known as a troll. I am leaning towards the latter interpretation.

[GourmetDan]

"There isn't a speck of logical deduction contained within your "example". Anyone can say anything happened as a result of some arbitrary belief, but that does not come even remotely close to being a logical proof. You actually have to have supporting evidence."

It's called the fallacy of affirming the consequent and that's exactly how belief in evolution works.

"Given this statement, and your other post in which you described science as being philosophical mumbo-jumbo and philosophy as having a logical evidentiary basis, I am left with only two logical possibilities here. Either you really do have an extraordinarily muddled understanding of both philosophy and science, or you are what is popularly known as a troll. I am leaning towards the latter interpretation."

Misrepresenting the statements of others in order to draw an unflattering characterization isn't a substantive argument.