Michael is not a scientist; he is a software developer. I have dabbled in amateur software development. I think that when Michael sees an if/then conditional statement, he interprets it not as a hypothesis, but as code.
In any programming language of your choice, the "if" part of an if/then conditional sets the conditions. The "then" part contains code that is only executed if the condition is true. Execution doesn't occur if the conditional might be true. Execution doesn't occur to test the conditional. Execution only occurs if the conditional really is true.
In other words, from Michael's perspective (we he can't seem to break out of), an "if" statement is really a form of truth statement. It isn't a hypothesis which is tested; it is a truth statement with consequences. That's why he can't get past the "if" part. He thinks you are making a claim and then moving on to execute the "then" portion of the conditional without questioning your initial assumption. He can't wrap his head around the notion that the "then" in this context includes testing the initial condition.
Just out of curiosity, are you a theist or an atheist?
I think D'rok's insight is spot on.
Not only does MM have difficulty with IF ... THEN ... but also TRUE/FALSE (i.e. binary logic).
It's not that there's any problem with MM's use of these, when it comes to software development^, but when he applies these to science he gets things all messed up.
For example, assuming that every "Yes/No" question must have either "Yes" or "No" as an answer is an example of the logical fallacy known as false dichotomy (it may have other names too); logically, both "Neither Yes nor No" and "Both Yes and No" are logically consistent, and valid, answers to a Yes/No question.
Consider this, more general, question:
What is the electron?
a) a particle
b) a wave
c) both a particle and a wave
d) neither a particle nor a wave
e) sometimes a particle, sometimes a wave
f) none of the above
g) all of the above
Now in MM's worldview, every question he asks must have an answer like a) or b) (so it seems).
It gets worse.
As I have said earlier, in MM's worldview scientific facts are both black&white and immortal - gravity exists, helium exists, CDM does not exist, and so on.
In fact, it seems MM's worldview is an almost perfect example of what science is not.
^
there might be, but we have no evidence one way or the other, and in any case, it's irrelevant
