[Quick1]

NS is a theory. It has warts. ID is a theory. Not sure what it has. ID is certainly NOT a theory. It has no testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and as such, can never become a scientific theory.

[Gumlegs]

ID is certainly NOT a theory. It has no testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and as such, can never become a scientific theory.

Yeah, but aside from that.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Evolution is NOT incompatible with Christinity.

Most Catholics ( who are Christian ) believe in the science of evolution and don't purport to know that God created the earth in 6 24hr days...which is a human conception.

Now they are putting stickers in physics textbooks in Georgia that says "Gravity is not a proven theory". This is getting really out of control. Science is the gift that God gave mankind. How we use it is up to us. My faith is much bigger than "somebody's " idea of creation.

[Dark Knight]

Uhhh, yeah it could. The designer could show us directly that this is how they did it. We could reproduce the information and verify it. We could base predictions on that information.

I think were gonna figure it out before that happens.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster however is an insult to the many, many more mainstream pasta religions everywhere. I would dare say it a religion of Terrorism.

DK

[Diamond]

ID is certainly NOT a theory. It has no testable, falsifiable hypothesis, and as such, can never become a scientific theory.

Then why have scientific arguments been advanced aimed at falsifying it?

One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable. Michael Behe

Cordially,