AIS,

I have long since passed the point of becoming repetitive so all I can say is you've said nothing that's new or changes the point I've been making. Yes it's the nature of science to have holes or gaps in its explanations. Yes it should be accepted that way and failure to do so is failure to understand what science is about (and this should be explained, which David is good at doing). And yes, The Religious People are resistant to science for essentially the reasons you characterize, and yes they are factually wrong.

But it's striking how *defensive*, even insecure, you sound about science when you say things like "If we are to apply "weakness" to [origins explanation] as a result of that, the rest of the theory would be as weak and attackable."

It would? be "attackable"? I totally disagree.

You, on the other hand, (ironically) evidently don't have confidence in the theory of evolution to stand up against illogical attacks based on irrelevantly pointing at gaps in the margin. If we give an inch, they'll take a mile, eh? We must circle the wagons around science against these attacks from The Religious People! Show them no weakness!!

This attitude is precisely what I mean to say is reactionary and unhelpful. When there's no question but that the origins explanation is rickety and yet you (apparently) insist we not acknowledge this, it's difficult for me to distinguish that from the attitude of a religious person who refuses to acknowledge that the Bible's creation story is rickety. It may be a difference of degree but not kind.

Moreover, it's difficult to recognize the fear "we would be worse off because it would give them more room to maneuver" as a valid concern of science or someone who's intellectually honest about presenting science's best-explanations.

They can boast even more than they do now that they have no problem with "real science" since they only disagree with the "weak" and "problematic" parts which are
"still debatable".

Perhaps they can, and would. Yes they would cling to that gap. Which will, at some time or another, become ever smaller. So what? Let them. Science is unharmed by this. Moreover, the smaller the gaps get, the more difficult it becomes to mythologize them, and so the ranks of The Religious People Who Resist Science will be naturally lessened, over time (though evidently not soon enough for you). In the meantime we would have always presented science's explanations honestly and sincerely - which includes acknowledging where details are sketchy, so that scientists know what must be filled in by the way - and let the chips fall where they may.

But in all honesty it appears to me that you, and to some extent David, are primarily concerned with culture-war here, not science.