"For one thing, we live in very different conditions today to those we evolved in"
I think ultimately biology goes back to the laws of physics, and I don't think those have changed much in the last couple of 1000 years. Also, I think we have some idea what life was 10000 years ago - there certainly was no breast enhancement surgery, and no anti baby pill, for example.
That is precisely where I see a difference from the "god made it" hypothesis: for evolution and biology, and relationships and stuff, there ARE models, which can be used to predict things (either for the future, or for data points in the past). There is no such thing for "god made it". Therefore I don't understand why you think the "fat" theory can not be put to the test. Maybe my ideas were not convincing - I am not a biologist anyway. But that doesn't prove that there can be no test. In physics, there also is not always a test to test a theory. There are theoretical physicists and practical physicists, and some practitioners are considered brilliant for finding good way to test certain theories.
Of course I admit that strictly speaking, I am not making a 100% case against the god hypothesis. You could answer "of course, god made it so that {insert elaborate theory from physics}, then there would be something to test". But I hope you know what I mean anyway.
Not 100% sure what constitutes a science, either - this discussion made me think of court cases. Suppose you want to find out who committed a murder. You can not test that either - you can only collect evidence that person X did it, but I don't think you can test it (no repeatable test for the future - you can only kill the victim once). Is it therefore not a science? But still it seems possible at least in some cases to identify the murder with high certainty.
I'm not trying to make a very important point really, just point out that I don't think anthropological theories can be falsified, despite your assertion otherwise.
That's not to suggest I think the "god created it" theory has the same intellectual standing as the anthropological theories, just that neither of them are scientific.
By the way, according to Popper, a scientific theory is exactly one that can be falsified, hence my introduction of the word "science" into the discussion.
I think ultimately biology goes back to the laws of physics, and I don't think those have changed much in the last couple of 1000 years. Also, I think we have some idea what life was 10000 years ago - there certainly was no breast enhancement surgery, and no anti baby pill, for example.
That is precisely where I see a difference from the "god made it" hypothesis: for evolution and biology, and relationships and stuff, there ARE models, which can be used to predict things (either for the future, or for data points in the past). There is no such thing for "god made it". Therefore I don't understand why you think the "fat" theory can not be put to the test. Maybe my ideas were not convincing - I am not a biologist anyway. But that doesn't prove that there can be no test. In physics, there also is not always a test to test a theory. There are theoretical physicists and practical physicists, and some practitioners are considered brilliant for finding good way to test certain theories.
Of course I admit that strictly speaking, I am not making a 100% case against the god hypothesis. You could answer "of course, god made it so that {insert elaborate theory from physics}, then there would be something to test". But I hope you know what I mean anyway.
Not 100% sure what constitutes a science, either - this discussion made me think of court cases. Suppose you want to find out who committed a murder. You can not test that either - you can only collect evidence that person X did it, but I don't think you can test it (no repeatable test for the future - you can only kill the victim once). Is it therefore not a science? But still it seems possible at least in some cases to identify the murder with high certainty.