In which case evolution isn't conjecture. Observations can be made that could potentially disprove evolution, so it is testable. It doesn't have to be reproduced in a lab to be testable.
The difference is that there is an adequate explanation for the formation of rainclouds whereas many people think that the gaps in the theory of Evolution are still too great to rule out a non-natural explanation. Occam's razor suffices for the first; it is not yet sharp enough for the latter.
Natural explainations cannot rule out non-natural explainations. Non-natural explainations always remain possible. Just because rain can form due to a natural process doesn't mean it always does. If you are going to use Occam's razor, then surely it's the intelligent design explaination which is simpler. It is afterall just "an unknown designer made rainclouds using an unknown method". That's it.
I was not presenting an explanation of Intelligent Design but rather responding to your attempt at ridicule by the introduction of the unnecessary "invisible supernatural weathermaker".
I wasn't attempting ridicule. I was pointing out that if you change the rules of science to allow ID to be a scientific theory then you implicitly allow other supernatural explainations to become scientific theories as well, even ones you don't think are rational.
An Intelligent Designer of life is not a ridiculous idea, and it is not an irrational idea. It makes a lot of sense and it might very well be true. But as it is not testable and so is not a scientific explaination.
The conclusions that would allow a supernatural explanation for life are just as rational as those that lead to the belief in Evolution.
A supernatural explaination for meteorology is also rational but also untestable. Weather is pretty complex and unpredictable, therefore what is irrational with an explaination for weather that involves the supernatural? One example would be some geia theory that says the earth is a concious living supernatural being and it controls the weather systems as part of some higher unknown plan. Is the only reason you think such a theory doesn't deserve to be science because you think it is irrational? Why is it irrational? It might be true afterall. The real reason it isn't science is that it is untestable.
What other criteria would qualify Evolution as an empirical science that would rule out the acceptance of the Apostolic witness to the Resurrection? (Remember that I am speaking here of an empirical science, not a natural one.)
People use the scientific method everyday unknowingly on a lot of things that aren't thought of as a science. For example I can make a hypothesis about where my lost car keys might be and test predictions based on that hypothesis. But while that might follow scientific methodology it isn't part of a scientific field so I wouldn't call it a science. But of course that doesn't make it any less credible or useful.
Evolution is a theory within the field of biology, because it seeks to explain the diversity of life, so it is thought of as a scientific theory. ID is an explaination which is within the field of biology, although I do not see it as a science because it cannot be tested and therefore verified in any way.
I suppose some theories in economics might be testable using the scientific method, but unless economics is considered a science (some people say it is, others disagree), then a theory in economics won't be called a scientific theory.
Generally religions are not sciences, because a lot of it is based on non-empirical evidence, such as divine texts. That's why religious faith exists. But that doesn't mean science cannot be applied to some of it.
Creation Science is a science because it is a broad explaination that falls within verious fields like biology and geology.
The acceptance of the Apostolic witness to the Resurrection might be testable using the scientific method, but I really do not know how broad an explaination it is, or what scientific field it would fall under.
While the observations are testable, the conclusion that they were the result of random mutation and natural selection is not.
I wasn't attempting ridicule. I was pointing out that if you change the rules of science to allow ID to be a scientific theory then you implicitly allow other supernatural explainations to become scientific theories as well, even ones you don't think are rational.
Exactly which rule of science rules out Intelligent Design; falsifiability? Intelligent Design is making its claim on specific conclusions that the observed variety of life forms cannot be explained by natural means. Each of these individual claims can be falsified by showing a specific natural cause. Likewise, Intelligent Design is attempting to use the scientific method to disprove Evolution by falsifying specific jumps in the evolutionary record as being impossible by natural means.
I would like to point out here that neither Evolution nor Intelligent Design need, or should, be taken as a whole rather than in their parts. Each could be true in explaining specific changes in the evolutionary order. Thus some jumps in the evolutionary record could be by natural causes and some not. It is the individual claims that need to be judged. The evidence for Natural Evolution is much too weak to assume that it must cover all the changes that we observe. Perhaps it may in time, but that has yet to be shown.
To continue from your above statement, since Intelligent Design claims that its conclusions are based on reason, why would its acceptance have to admit irrational theories?
Weather is pretty complex and unpredictable, therefore what is irrational with an explaination for weather that involves the supernatural?
Unpredictability, as you know, does not rule out natural explanations. Therefore there is no need to appeal to the supernatural. Intelligent Design's objection to Evolution is not that it is unpredictable but that it is impossible.
ID is an explaination which is within the field of biology, although I do not see it as a science because it cannot be tested and therefore verified in any way.
Its individual claims that specific evolutionary changes are impossible by natural means are testable because they could be falsified by identifying the particular natural cause.
I suppose some theories in economics might be testable using the scientific method, but unless economics is considered a science (some people say it is, others disagree), then a theory in economics won't be called a scientific theory.
Personally I hold that economics is a science. It is a social science, not a natural one. Although generally accepted in popular speech, it is a conceit of the natural sciences to appropriate the term "science" to themselves alone. There are true sciences outside the natural fields.
The acceptance of the Apostolic witness to the Resurrection might be testable using the scientific method, but I really do not know how broad an explaination it is, or what scientific field it would fall under.
I was not claiming that the acceptance of the Apostolic witness to the Resurrection was a natural science, only that it is an empirical as Evolution; either both are or neither are. For the record I do not think that the conclusion of either is empirical.