Newton had the Law of "Universal Gravitation", indisputable, refuted by Einstein's " General Relativity". But in neither case did they or anyone since, find or can compute what the gravitation force is. We can calculate the atomic forces both weak and strong, but we cannot explain why masses attract each other over infinite distance. Your comment seems to try to base the proof of gravity on gravitational fields.
=Broken record mode=
I Present the Theory of Intelligent Design. Please demonstrate it to be false though experiment and observation.
=/Broken record mode=
Bzzt. Your sentence implies ID is a theory.
If it's a theory it makes predictions about future observations; if these predictions are false, the theory is considered falsified.
So, precisely what observation cannot be "explained" as "the designer did it that way"?
My contention is that ID isn't a theory - it is incapable of falsification, ie it is vacuous.
If it's not a theory, it has no place in science class. Possibly in rhetoric class.
OK, so it's actually the hypothesis of ID.
I still can't think of any observation that would contradict it.
In fact, I don't think it's possible in principle. Unless there are some limits placed on the hypothetical designer's abilities, anything is possible.
If ID is ever to replace standard biology, it will have to account for all the facts that existing theory does. I just don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that the hypothetical designer made sure that every mutation common to both whales and cows is also found in hippos; or every one common to cats and dogs is also found in bears; or every one common to chimps and gorillas is also found in people....
Well, I guess it could have designed them that way, but ID cannot make another prediction like the ones I just listed, whereas standard biology can, and has, and has been right every time so far.
I'm sorry, but again you're incorrect. Not only are you wrong that theories are proven hypotheses, but you're also wrong that laws are promoted theories.
I Present the Theory of Intelligent Design. Please demonstrate it to be false though experiment and observation.
The burden of proof is on the supporter of a hypothesis not only to explain how his hypothesis may be disproved, but to actually carry out the experiment as well as to demonstrate through experiment how the currently prevailing model is incorrect.
It seems to me that many supporters of the intelligent design conjecture have their own incorrectly pre-conceived notions about what science is and how it works. If supporters of intelligent design would education themselves about how science conducts research, they might come to the realization that intelligent design is a philosophical premise and not something that is scientifically falsifiable. If supporters of intelligent design put as much effort and creativity into getting classes on ethics and morality taught in schools as they do trying to pass off a philosophy as science, students would be much better off, and this artificial conflict would wither away.
Definitions (from a google search). Hope these help:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"