Re:how, exactly (Score 1)

I was not intending to set up a straw man (although I can see how it would be taken as one). My grammar was poor in my first line. I did not mean to equate science with evolution. Simply to point out that Scientific (scientific theories, not science, sorry) theories in generally and evolution in particular are unable to be falsified, as in proven false. I was trying to point out something similar to what you concluded. Namely, that science doesn't disprove one way or another it only shows one thing as more likely than another. As you said, 'evolution' cannot be falsified. The post I replied to amounted to saying that only things that are falsifiable are science. Evolution is not falsifiable. One may be able to show the probablity of evolution vs. ID, but this is not what the original post stated. Furthermore, Things can be shown as more likely or less likely outside of empirical observation and experimentation. Would these then be scientific theories? On what grounds does one determine which is more or less likely? Yes, one could experiment or take empirical observations, but these, like in the case with the litmus paper, only show likely-hood. At some point in order to say that it is true that theory x is more likely than theory Y one must assert some framework for making this judgment or face an infinite regress of experimentation. where does this framework come from? I recognize science (perhaps incorrectly) to work with pragmatism. What works is what is true. Or perhaps, to put it another way, the preferred theory is the one with greater explanatory power. On this basis ID can be treated as a scientific theory and compared with evolution. We can determine which has the greatest explanatory power, or is the most practical. This conclusion is incompatible with the original post's conclusion that in order to be science a theory must be falsifiable. I may be incorrect in this view of science, if so please correct me, I would like to see exactly how and where these ideas fall short.