Something I also noticed. Funny how Stephen tends to stay away from the 'meat of the matter'. Instead he tends to use irrelevant quotes from those minimally skilled in the science.
Susan: Nice try Stephen :-)
Oh well, it still does not beat his attempt with regard to Popper.
Quoting Johnson:
>"Even such slight evidence is more than sufficient, however, because
>evidence is not really necessary to prove something that is practically self-
>evident.
Susan: see? Johnson does it to. Of course, if there were no evidence, nothing to
study, nothing to look at, no evidence to consider, why would science exist
at all?
Which supports by above observation.