So is there any reason - now that we have happily discarded the argument for irreducible complexity - to doubt that it is equally obvious that A has indeed led to B "...via an evolutionary process"? I can't think of one. — Siti

The necessity of keeping science empirical. I said this from the very beginning so I'm somewhat bemused that we had to detour through a bunch of unrelated dosh to get there. And besides, I said nothing about doubt - a loaded term which I nowhere used - so to be honest it's probably more fair to say that what you've written here has nothing to do with my previous posts. Fallibism is not a question of doubt.

You said

No I'm not, you were talking about things for which we have zero evidence...so was I.

That sure sounds like you're lumping orbiting tea pots and alien life together, since both have zero evidence.

Anyway, it sounds like you admit the possibility of aliens and orbiting tea pots belong in different categories.

The necessity of keeping science empirical. — StreetlightX

Science is necessarily empirical and based on the assumption that B follows A (whatever A and B cause/effect pair we are considering) via a perfectly natural process. Absent either the empiricism or the assumption of naturalism (for practical purposes), it simply isn't science.

I'm somewhat bemused that we had to detour through a bunch of unrelated dosh to get there. — StreetlightX

Its just the way the conversation naturally evolved.

Fallibism is not a question of doubt. — StreetlightX

Are you sure?

Science is necessarily empirical and based on the assumption that B follows A (whatever A and B cause/effect pair we are considering) via a perfectly natural process. Absent either the empiricism or the assumption of naturalism (for practical purposes), it simply isn't science. — Siti

Great. All the more reason to ensure that we keep open the possibility that new evidence may prompt a revision of our theories, as a matter of principle.

Are you sure? — Siti

Yes. But I could be wrong :)