It went as expected. After my brief refutation of their claims regarding the non-science of evolution, it went a step deeper, the rejection of science.
Basically they took it to the fundamentals of science. We know that science makes some assumptions, a memorable past, a predictable future and an observable external reality, but the mere fact that science makes these assumptions means that it is just as good as any religion.
I mean, those assumptions are just a way of perceiving things. Of regarding things at a certain angle. How can you say that these assumptions are any better than the assumptions that a religion makes.
Those assumptions are faith, are they not?
Bloody typical. In order to avoid evolution, they first try to redefine science so that it doesn't include phrases like "Saturn has rings". And then when you point this out to them, they then do indeed throw out the baby with (what they consider to be) the bathwater, and become
complete epistimological relativists --- rather than accept one scientific fact which they don't like.
If "an observable external reality" is just a matter of faith, then it is, consequently, a merely a matter of "faith" that I have two legs.
But this is not usually what is meant by "faith". Actually, it's more like what normal people would call "a fact".
It doesn't seem to be what the Bible means by "faith", either.
Perhaps we need another word for "that particular sort of faith which is well-verified by all relevant observations". We could call it "truth", or "science", or "not running away from reality as fast as your legs will carry you".
Sheesh, it's like watching someone
file for intellectual bankruptcy.
™ Version 4.2
