That sidesteps the true issue. Can you show where science has attempted to refute evolution, itself?
Evolution, insofar as the kind that would confute intelligent design, has never been demonstrated in an experimental environment.
But as for your question, here's one: why would Prigogine get a Nobel prize for his theories regarding self-organizing systems if there were not a prior philosophic commitment to finding a materialistic cause?
Furthermore, the invariable answer to the insolubles (my personal favorites are irreducible complexity and instinctive behavior) of evolutionary theory are ALWAYS a) you're religious, so you don't care about facts, b) we haven't figured that out yet, or c) offer up a scientific gnat as the basis for swallowing the theoretical camel.
>>That sidesteps the true issue. Can you show where science has attempted to refute evolution, itself?<<
TToE is indeed falsifiable. Where has science tried to refute it? The question is a non-sequiteur and betrays our ignorance. When has science attempted to refute physics? Biology? Mathematics? The question makes no sense,
>>Evolution, insofar as the kind that would confute intelligent design, has never been demonstrated in an experimental environment.<<
It has been shown many times — not quite sure what ID has to do with anything here. A simple example: flies which are denizens of the NY Subway system are unable to breed with flies in the upper world. They have evolved away from each other. Viruses are evolved all the time. Pests who become immune to pesticides evolve. ToE is a major tool in all these areas and more.
>>But as for your question, here’s one: why would Prigogine get a Nobel prize for his theories regarding self-organizing systems if there were not a prior philosophic commitment to finding a materialistic cause?<<
All science is in the material world. Science is a tool to explain the material world. If you want tools for other realms, use philosophy, theology, etc.
>>Furthermore, the invariable answer to the insolubles (my personal favorites are irreducible complexity and instinctive behavior) of evolutionary theory are ALWAYS a) you’re religious, so you don’t care about facts, b) we haven’t figured that out yet, or c) offer up a scientific gnat as the basis for swallowing the theoretical camel.<<
This is an argument absurdum. Start with the actual TToE as a basis for your argumentation. And before that start with an understanding of what a Scientific Theory is and the Scientific Method.
You need much knowledge, padwan.
I am not going to refight the crevo wars here so that is my last word on the subject.