Replies

Because that is the measure, ultimately, of any scientific theory--its predictive value. If it does not have better predictive value than a competing theory, the competing theory wins.

And what if both theories are roughly equivalent in their predictive value?

Yes, it's survival of the fittest.

Which is why ID claims that biological systems should be looked at to determine if they could have evolved naturally or had to be created by some other mechanism is good science. It tests the fitness of both theories. How is believing that evolution is a settled matter and that it's a waste of time challenging it with alternate theories better science than testing it to see if evidence can be found of a non-natural mechanism at work in the process?

And what if both theories are roughly equivalent in their predictive value?

When that happens we'll get back to you. As of now the mainstream theory of evolution makes numerous successful predictions and has been verified constantly against millions of observations over the last 150 years. Every genome we map could invalidate or radically change the standard ToE if the results were unexpected. Likewise every new species that we identify. Every fossil that we dig up..... And ID makes what falsifiable predictions exactly? (sound of crickets chirping)