When a paleontologist compares hominid skulls he is using emprical science. When geneticists compare DNA of species to test evolutionary hypothese they are using empirical science. Evolution is grounded in empirical science.
When he collects his evidence and says that Dillinger fired the shot he is making a forensic, non-empirical, conclusion.
I don't see how a conclusion can be either un-empirical or empirical. A conclusion can be based on empirical evidence or not.
If all emprical evidence points at Dillenger firing the shot then the conclusion in this case is based on empirical evidence.
Equally the existance of the dinosaurs is based on empirical evidence. Noone was around to witness the dinosaurs existing, but empirical observation of fossils supports that conclusion.
When it concludes that random mutations and natural selection over a long period of time accounts for the variety of life it is making a forensic conclusion that is only conjecture. The confidence that we can place in such forensic conclusion is variable. Thus in court we see the need for "preponderance of the evidence" in civil court and "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court.
Sure I agree that theories in science have variable confidence and are not proven. I just disagree that they are merely guesses/conjecture.
Now you are being insulting as well as silly. This is based on the assumption that faith must be irrational and purely a matter of fideism.
I wasn't being insulting. I was looking at the matter objectively. I was not assuming the Intelligent Designer of life was God, but a generic designer.
What I don't understand now is why you think an invisible intelligent creator of species isn't silly and is science but an invisible intelligent creator of rainclouds *is* silly and isn't science. This has nothing to do with religion, but how to determine whether explainations are scientific explainations, or not. I don't see how you can allow one as science, but not the other.
Anyone with a familiarity with philosophy would know that there are rational proofs for a belief in God in general and in the Christian revelation in particular.
Officially, Intelligent Design does not say the designer is God. It could be aliens or whatever. The general explaination is simply that an unknown designer created species over time.
If the possibility of falsification by a random fossil find is enough to qualify Evolution as an empirical science then the same could be said of the Christian faith. The discovery of the tomb of Jesus with his bones intact would falsify it. Thus either both Evolution and Christianity are empirical sciences or neither is.
if falsification was the only criteria for a scientific explaination then it would be.
I never said otherwise.
Sure I agree that theories in science have variable confidence and are not proven. I just disagree that they are merely guesses/conjecture.
Here we are getting to the heart of the matter. First, conjecture is not the same as a guess; it can be based on solid evidence. Conjecture is a logical conclusion that is not testable. In the case of Dillinger we are questioning a particular crime and is thus unrepeatable and untestable. The empirical evidence might be quite compelling so that we can reach the threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" that is required in a criminal court. Likewise, although all the evidence might point to Dillinger, it might be incomplete and not meet that threshold. We might have to settle for the threshold of "the preponderance of the evidence" and seek redress in civil court. A third possibility is that, although the evidence might produce a strong suspicion, nothing could be proved in any court.
If we agree that theories in science have variable confidence then it should be proper to discuss what confidence that should be given to the theory of Evolution. Umbrage should not be taken if some find evidence for Evolution to be incomplete and less than compelling.
What I don't understand now is why you think an invisible intelligent creator of species isn't silly and is science but an invisible intelligent creator of rainclouds *is* silly and isn't science. This has nothing to do with religion, but how to determine whether explainations are scientific explainations, or not. I don't see how you can allow one as science, but not the other.
The difference is that there is an adequate explanation for the formation of rainclouds whereas many people think that the gaps in the theory of Evolution are still too great to rule out a non-natural explanation. Occam's razor suffices for the first; it is not yet sharp enough for the latter.
Officially, Intelligent Design does not say the designer is God. It could be aliens or whatever. The general explaination is simply that an unknown designer created species over time.
I was not presenting an explanation of Intelligent Design but rather responding to your attempt at ridicule by the introduction of the unnecessary "invisible supernatural weathermaker". It is very popular to present supporters of Intelligent Design as nothing more that a bunch of twelve-toed flat earthers who have no rational reasons for their beliefs. The conclusions that would allow a supernatural explanation for life are just as rational as those that lead to the belief in Evolution.
if falsification was the only criteria for a scientific explaination then it [Christianity] would be.
I was specifically responding to your earlier statement that Evolution was an empirical science because if was falsifiable:
It is testable and therefore is empirical science. For example a human skeleton found in the cambrian would falsify the explaination that humans arose through minor variations over millions of years.What other criteria would qualify Evolution as an empirical science that would rule out the acceptance of the Apostolic witness to the Resurrection? (Remember that I am speaking here of an empirical science, not a natural one.)