" You seem to be confused about what the scientific definition of a theory means.
theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena,"
We're good so far.
"especially one that has been repeatedly tested"
Just don't infer from it being "widely tested" that it has been proven. Theories by definition are not proven fact.
"or is widely accepted"
That's a subjective defiition which is of little practical use.
"and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
If you want accurate predictions you're much better off basing them on facts rather than theories, however since there's far more about the universe that we don't know than we do know theories are often all we have to make predictions with.
A theory is a compelling argument. It's a starting point from which we can build other theories around in an attempt to get a better idea of how the world really works.
However, you always have to keep in mind that theories are unproven and therefore you cannot prove anything based on a theory.
"When scientists call something a theory, like the theory of evolution, they mean the former definition, not the latter. ID, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory at all; it doesn't qualify as a scientific "alternative" to evolutionary biology."
You've just made a claim. Now I'm going to ask you to prove it. While theories are unproven factual claims must be proven.
Let's go back to your definition.
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena"
Why does ID not fit within this.
It seems to fit for me.
Let's look at the rest.
"especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"
The problem with subjective definitions is that they're not very useful once someone asks you to prove an assertion based on them.
Theren there's this wonderful adjective "scientific".
How are you going to define that? Some variation of the things other than the supernatural definition? Hasn't science been used to explain things that were through to be surpernatural.
Once we get the definition of a scientific theory nailed down I've got another theory for you, or at least a hypothesis if that makes you happier than calling it a theory. :)
The theory of evolution tells us that species have evolved through random mutation and natural selection.
There is no evidence that shows that evolution through random chance is more likely that evolution by an intelligent design that includes a level of randomness for diversity. After all why have a design in which everything is the same, that would be boring.
The weakness of the theory of evolution isn't the part of the theory that says things evolve. It's that is theorizes that they evolve due to random mutation rather than by design.
Suggesting that they evolve by design is an alternate theory that is still supported by the fossil record as well as is the theory of evolution.
The problem I have with teaching ONLY evolution in schools is that it obscures the fact that evolution is only a theory.
I'm not professing the accuracy of ID or evolution.
I have a serious problem with how we educate students in schools.
You're definition of a scientific theory is an example of what I see as the problem. Scientists know that theories are unproven, yet the try so hard to define a scientific theory in such a way as to give it so much credibility as to treat it like a fact.
We need to quit fooling ourselves about what we know and what we do not know. We also need to teach children to think logically and to think critically. We need to educate students, not teach them to repeat dogma. We need to think for ourselves. Otherwise our society stagnates.
I seriously believe this is one of the most important issues facing our society, and it's not really an argument between religion and science. It's more a battle between freedom of thought and conformance with dogma.
Do you still think I don't understand what a scientific theory is?
Did I make you question what you think a scientific theory is?
Am I just full of crap?
You went through a lot of good detail there, but lost it with your "they evolve by design" comment.
As soon as you bring in the outside "designer" you stop doing science. Its like the comment I read on one of these threads earlier of a scientific theory or mathematical proof or some such with "then a miracle happened" in the middle.
What is the evidence for an outside designer? Under what conditions does this designer operate. If you hypothesize such a designer, how will you test your hypothesis?
Where does the hypothetical designer fit into this method of doing science? Can you point out the relevant facts? Or is it, "We don't know all the details so a miracle happened?"Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
I agree. Evolutionary theory is not dogma. It is falsifiable (that is, it can be tested). It makes specific, empirical predictions.
Intelligent Design fails both of these basic criteria required of a scientific theory. It is philosophy, and should be discussed as such. You should ask yourself, "What specific empirical predictions does ID make?" and "What potential finding could falsify ID?"
Those are the problems with ID as science. People should feel free to discuss whatever intellectual topics they want, but you can't require a science teacher to include something in a curriculum that just isn't science. There would be nothing to teach.