Good point. Darwin's theory is actually a hypothesis. It has never been proven, therefore the "Theory" classification is intellectually dishonest.
-----
Please, please, please stop with this tired, incorrect line of argument. Darwin had a theory. Specifically he had a theory to explain the diversity of life that we see around us. It is a theory because it makes predictions, is testable and is falsifiable. It is not "proven" because nothing in science EVER gets proven. ALL of science is tentative. Once you claim that something is "proven" then you are no longer doing science.
However, while ID claims to be a theory, it is not. It is not a theory because it makes no testable, falsifiable predictions.
I suspect the misclassification was adopted by Atheists
--
Not everyone who realises that ID is not a scientific thoery is an atheist. Many many of them are Christian. Why lie about them?
who are afraid of Christians and the message they bring, much as how "pro abortion" became "pro choice".
--
There is no correlation between opinions on abortion and opinion on pseudo-science
--
Lacking a relationship with Jesus, Atheists are desperate for substance in their lives, and will attempt to create an alternative to Christ - did you know that some alcoholics, trying to get clean actually worship door knobs rather than accept Jesus in their lives?
--
Name ONE alcoholic who worships a doorknob? And again, not everyone who realises that ID is not science is an atheist.
--
I know this is a very bad time of the year for Atheists, and this thread is bringing out the confusion, hate, fear, and lack of tolerance that rules their life.
--
Confusion? You are the one who confuses science with atheism.
--
Why else would they feel they must keep school children from hearing the word of God? What are you so afraid of?
--
But, I thought that Intelligent Design was meant to be science. Now it is the Word of God. It seems you ARE confused.
--
If your side were so sure God did not exist, that creationism, intelligent design, whatever, had no benefit or merit, you wouldn't bother with it any more than if your kid had to take Chinese or underwater basket weaving or high speed BB stacking.
--
Wrong again. If my kids were being taught ANY lies in school, I would be annoyed. Teaching them that ID is science is a lie.
--
No, the reason you are so desperate to keep even the slightest reference to God away from our children is because you are desperately afraid they will find a relationship with Our Lord, and you will be alone.
---
Nope. I dont care if kids are taught about gods of any sort. However, they should not be taught that nonscience is science. I happen to be very much in favour of kids learning about as many of the religions of the planet as possible. But not as science.
--
Have a Merry Christmas (you'll find it easier if you repent 1st)
--
Have a happy Christmas yourself. But I dont think I have anything on my conscience that I need to repent of at the moment.
"Darwin had a theory. Specifically he had a theory to explain the diversity of life that we see around us. It is a theory because it makes predictions, is testable and is falsifiable... However, while ID claims to be a theory, it is not. It is not a theory because it makes no testable, falsifiable predictions."
While there are conflicting views within the ID camp, I have made an ID centric hypothesis which is testable and falsifiable. I do not describe ID as a theory because, in addition to your criteria, we also need some level of verification. This could take the form of test results or a statistical model. Neither of these have been accomplished.
My testable, falsifiable ID statement is:
"Due to information complexity and interdependence, no living organism can ever spontaneously arise from lifeless matter which exists in a naturally occurring state, but life can be created."
For more elaboration and defense of this claim please see an earlier post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543993/posts?page=1488#1488
The predictions it makes largely, if not exclusively, extend to what will be found in a static record, and that record can be interpreted any number of ways. As far as predicting the future course of evolution, or the dynamic process of evolution as it happens today, Darwin's theory is useless. Natural selection is an arbitrary description that is applied only after the fact. How does Darwinian evolution "predict" mutations? Does it specify precisely where, when, and how the mutations will be beneficial?