I think you're pretty close as far as the assumption vs. hypothesis in science goes, naturalplastic.
However, these bods are determined to make assumptions some kind of "science tool" because their "science" is entirely based on ideological assumptions that they know are indefensible and they will come at any subterfuge to ensure that their ideological assumptions are not subjected to any reasonable or scientific scrutiny.
Anyhow, it's clear that any reasonable investigation or debate about the issue is not going to happen, so I thought I'd try a different tack.
Arty, I went back and found your claimed "refutation" of the entropy argument. To be honest, it came from the dark ages and it is so easy to falsify with observation, experiment and deduction that it now only used by lounge chair and bar stool "experts" who gain their knowledge of everything from media sales pitches.
I'll try and help you get more up-to-date with your strategy and rhetoric.
To sell a nonsense you need to com the multitude with much more esoteric claims... the kind that only the wisest inductees can "see". Claims that anyone with moderate knowledge and intelligence can dispute and refute are only a trap for the most naïve and credulous.
Now days, the "answer" to the entropy problem involves unfalsifiable speculations like "worm holes" going to and fro an infinite number of "multiverses" where entropy works in reverse then popping up on Earth and in the Universe all charged up with "anti-entropy". Who could devise an experiment to falsify that claim??? If it can't be disproved then it is proved... right?
It might surprise you to find that there area great many genuine scientists that would dispute that; but that will never bother you because you have defined "science" as only that which supports your ideology.
Wikipedia wrote:
Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable.[1]
For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.[2]
The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience. This is often epitomized in Wolfgang Pauli famously saying, of an argument that fails to be scientific because it cannot be falsified by experiment, "it is not only not right, it is not even wrong!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
15 Jan 2015, 6:16 am
Put your glasses on and read above. 
