[001sky]

To logically [bracket] this counter-argument is rather simple. But (1) this is trivial; and (2) re-read the sub-heading: the problem of solving problems. What makes this interesting and intellectually honest is the lack of reference to theory when defining the problem. Viz:

I just don't understand how that works. So that's a scientific problem.

There is no doubt. No-one is debating if he is a scientist. He doesn't [bracket] the problem [for science]. In other words, "It's an intellectually honest view of Science". Not that there's anything wrong with that. We all know that just because something is falsifiable, does not mean it is false.

Edits: Tone

[dmm]

Evolution is an independent process from the origin of life. The origin of life could be Jesus or aliens and that would not affect the validity of evolution.

[001sky]

This is an interesting thesis, but not self evidently true.

This is your logic:

A is independent of B.

B could be anything.

A is independent of B.

_______

But...

B could be a Set such that A is a subset of B.

A and B could also be terms in a Set Z, which includes A & B