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.)
In which case evolution isn't conjecture. Observations can be made that could potentially disprove evolution, so it is testable. It doesn't have to be reproduced in a lab to be testable.
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.
Natural explainations cannot rule out non-natural explainations. Non-natural explainations always remain possible. Just because rain can form due to a natural process doesn't mean it always does. If you are going to use Occam's razor, then surely it's the intelligent design explaination which is simpler. It is afterall just "an unknown designer made rainclouds using an unknown method". That's it.
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".
I wasn't attempting ridicule. I was pointing out that if you change the rules of science to allow ID to be a scientific theory then you implicitly allow other supernatural explainations to become scientific theories as well, even ones you don't think are rational.
An Intelligent Designer of life is not a ridiculous idea, and it is not an irrational idea. It makes a lot of sense and it might very well be true. But as it is not testable and so is not a scientific explaination.
The conclusions that would allow a supernatural explanation for life are just as rational as those that lead to the belief in Evolution.
A supernatural explaination for meteorology is also rational but also untestable. Weather is pretty complex and unpredictable, therefore what is irrational with an explaination for weather that involves the supernatural? One example would be some geia theory that says the earth is a concious living supernatural being and it controls the weather systems as part of some higher unknown plan. Is the only reason you think such a theory doesn't deserve to be science because you think it is irrational? Why is it irrational? It might be true afterall. The real reason it isn't science is that it is untestable.
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.)
People use the scientific method everyday unknowingly on a lot of things that aren't thought of as a science. For example I can make a hypothesis about where my lost car keys might be and test predictions based on that hypothesis. But while that might follow scientific methodology it isn't part of a scientific field so I wouldn't call it a science. But of course that doesn't make it any less credible or useful.
Evolution is a theory within the field of biology, because it seeks to explain the diversity of life, so it is thought of as a scientific theory. ID is an explaination which is within the field of biology, although I do not see it as a science because it cannot be tested and therefore verified in any way.
I suppose some theories in economics might be testable using the scientific method, but unless economics is considered a science (some people say it is, others disagree), then a theory in economics won't be called a scientific theory.
Generally religions are not sciences, because a lot of it is based on non-empirical evidence, such as divine texts. That's why religious faith exists. But that doesn't mean science cannot be applied to some of it.
Creation Science is a science because it is a broad explaination that falls within verious fields like biology and geology.
The acceptance of the Apostolic witness to the Resurrection might be testable using the scientific method, but I really do not know how broad an explaination it is, or what scientific field it would fall under.