The Argument Goes On

I've just been present tonight in a lecture in the Shul, in which the honorable lecturer preached to the believers and showed them how all these wonders of nature cannot really be explained by evolution. And I thought to myself "would any of this lecture be enough to convince the person I've tried to answer in my previous post?" The answer is "for sure no" as the Hassid and Heretic himself explained so eloquently to another person who did not understand my post "ZA was just saying what I have been saying for a long time. In order to believe in something improvable you need to have pre-misconceptions, otherwise it doesn’t work. Once you ‘see the truth’, you can find plenty of proof to support it, it works for UFO junkies just as it does for Jehovah’s witnesses, (you would also agree with me,) so it must be true."
The conceptual mistake of both the lecturer tonight and the Hassid and Heretic is that each one of them comes from an improvable theory and is trying to instill that proverbial pre-misconception in their listeners. However, as true believers, both of them believe that theirs is the true conception while the other's is the pre-misconception. The pro-science crowd, who is now in the attack, dismisses anything that is not "scientific" even though it is in time, as improvable as the other side's arguments. The religious side could show very eloquently how stupid and shallow are their oponents, and believe me stupid and shallow they seem to be in their hubris, but their own arguments stay improvable as before.
I think that the key to this argument is the question whether "seeing the truth" (as the Hassid and Heretic put it) really equals to pre-misconception. But deeper than that, firstly, one has to believe that the other side, as "wrong" and misguided they seem to be, still they are as intelligent as his or her own side. If that belief does not exist than there is no place for dialogue. It is a war in which one has to fight in order either to convert the other or destroy it. Those who doubt the intelligence and wisdom of their opponents are in essence religious fanatics (regardless whether their religion is based on some deity or is deity-less and scientific) and while they may have not yet resorted to oppression and terrorism as some notable religions and deity-less religions have done, (Al-Qaeida comes to mind,) they could and would potentially do that as well.
Now, if we go back to "seeing the truth", starting from the agreement that both sides of the argument are populated by intelligent people; we must examine what have caused somebody to "see the truth" and what is that truth. If the other person is indeed wise, yet he or she holds on to a truth different that the one holds, then it is possible that we need to examine our own views.
Surprisingly, both religion (at least those that do not promote the sword as a conversion device and do not try to convert you post-humus) and science (in its sanity moments) agree that everything is in the eyes of the beholder. Religions call it Free Will while science speaks about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.