But what if an explaination is contrived in such a way that prevents it being even potentially disproven? For example the theory that lightning is caused by invisible and undetectable beings is contrived in such a way that it can't possibly be ever disproven.
"But what if an explaination is contrived in such a way that prevents it being even potentially disproven? For example the theory that lightning is caused by invisible and undetectable beings is contrived in such a way that it can't possibly be ever disproven."
Because we have scientifically proven how lightning is generated. We can reproduce it on a repeated basis. If we could reproduce the "evolution" of the human species in a lab, then there would be no reason to consider "intelligent design".
Until something is disproven or another theory is proven, you are only limiting yourself in the search for the truth. Socrates pushed the Dialectic method which advocated a debate, even with the absurd, in the search for veritas. To limit the bounds of an exploratory debate is to one's self a disservice. I don't see how the judges can call "Darwin's Theory" science. In its final analysis, it is no more proven than the Egyptians theory that the stars in the sky are a holes in a turtles shell.