>Let me point out the flaw in your reasoning.
Ironically in attempting this, you have perfectly illustrated the flaw in
yours. While faith-healers and missionaries and the like may cling to the
"faith requires no proof" dogma to defend their doctrines from the
dissecting scrutiny of the scientific method, I would argue that they, nor
you, has any valid argument whatsoever in saying that the foundations of
religion can not some day be tested. And as you pointed out, my argument
might be idiotic, but yours is plainly blind. Idiots can be taught, but the
blind are utterly helpless (euphemistically, of course).
>>Darwin's original hypothesis was untestable in his time, but it is
>certainly testable (and has been tested) today. The difference
>between his hypothesis and the hypothesis of Creation of God's
>existence is that the latter CANNOT be tested for verification/
>falsification.
