I didn't see any indication that the debate was about 'usefullness'. I saw Fyron asserting that there was some huge difference between 'science' and 'religion'. What I wanted to point out is that a close examination of some fields of 'science' shows them to be religious in character. So this big distinction is not so clear as he would like to think it is. And anyway, I'd sure like to know what 'use' an untestable theory is.
Sure we've got a lot of practical benefits from various biological sciences, some of which might have been developed while trying to investigate evolution, but what have we gotten from evolution specifically?
P.S. Who says you have to have a new theory before you can dispose of the old one? Why can't I disprove the phlogiston theory of heat until I develop the radiation theory? It's easy to do. Grind a couple of wheels together and see that they never stop heating each other up by friction.
[ March 16, 2003, 00:14: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]