Falsifying the tree of descent, not the theory of natural selection, is the key phrase above. Given that there are now competing claims as to whether dinosaurs were more reptilian or more avian, and that evolutionists are ready with explanations for either case, I am not confident that any fossil find would be accepted as falsifying Natural Evolution.
Nor does the fact that it could be falsified by a non-experimental observation make it an empirical science. There are many theories about the JFK assassination. A document found in the KGB file giving instructions and a post operation report complete with confirming film evidence would falsify the other competing theories. Prior to such conclusive evidence however the study is a forensic one, not an empirical one. Such is the case with Evolution.
My problem is not that supporters Evolution are presenting a theory but that they are insisting that it has a greater confidence of being true than it really does. It is also dishonest to suggest that competing theories must somehow be unscientific if they do not lead to a naturalistic conclusion. In science nothing should be presupposed.
But falsifiying the tree would also falsify the theory of natural selection. Natural selection cannot work with any old tree. Out of all possible trees natural selection is only compatible with a mere few.
Given that there are now competing claims as to whether dinosaurs were more reptilian or more avian, and that evolutionists are ready with explanations for either case, I am not confident that any fossil find would be accepted as falsifying Natural Evolution.
Modern mammals in the cambrian would do it. Seriously try and draw a tree of descent where modern mammals exist before early primitive mammals and their reptile-like mammal ancestors. You can't have a fossil existing before it's ancestors.
Nor does the fact that it could be falsified by a non-experimental observation make it an empirical science.
Experiments are not a requirement of empirical science.
however the study is a forensic one, not an empirical one. Such is the case with Evolution.
Forensic science is empirical. Geology is empirical. Paleontology is empirical.
My problem is not that supporters Evolution are presenting a theory but that they are insisting that it has a greater confidence of being true than it really does.
No, I don't see that at all. As a rough analogy it's like a hole which you cannot see and you can only guess it's shape by making different shaped pegs and slowly inserting them into the hole.
For almost any peg you make, it will go in part way. But it only takes one part of the peg to not fit to tell you that the hole is not the same shape as the peg.
Creationism in this analogy is a peg that will only fit a small proportion of possible holes, and on this particular hole it got stuck part way in.
Evolution in this analogy is also a peg that will only fit a small proportion of possible holes. In this case it has been slowly inserted into the hole for 150 years, and so far has not blocked.
What ID is in this analogy is a chopstick being poked into the hole. Yes it fits, but then it would fit any shaped hole, so it is useless at telling us what shape the hole might be.
It is also dishonest to suggest that competing theories must somehow be unscientific if they do not lead to a naturalistic conclusion. In science nothing should be presupposed.
What about the theory that an invisible supernatural weathermaker causes many of the rain storms around the world? Is that deserving as a competing theory to Natural Meteorology? Should it be taught in schools as a rival theory?
In science's view (and mine) of course such a theory is not a *scientific* theory at all because it is not testable, because it is not falsifiable. However while I can say it isn't a scientific theory, I don't see what grounds you have to say that Intelligent Weather is not a valid scientific theory given what you wrote above.