[highball]

Regarding ID: It takes the same data and draws different conclusions. That's theory.

No, it isn't. You're using "theory" in the vernacular, perhaps unaware that it has a very specific meaning when used in a scientific sense. Very common mistake.

A theory requires evidence. A theory must have been tested. A theory must be supported by that evidence. All before the word "theory" may be applied.

There has never been one piece of physical evidence to support ID. Ever. Until there is, it isn't worth the title "theory."

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"Regarding ID: It takes the same data and draws different conclusions. That's theory."

"No, it isn't. You're using "theory" in the vernacular, perhaps unaware that it has a very specific meaning when used in a scientific sense. Very common mistake."

*********************************************************

The pro-evolution argument is weakened by overstating the meaning of "theory", and implying that evolution has somehow been "proven". (FWIW, I tend to accept the TOE.)

If proponents of TOE chose to stand on a hillock shouting out pontifications about science, and denigrating their opponents as being unscientific and superstitious; they must, at least, demonstrate some knowledge of the fundamentals of the philosophy of science.

Theories cannot be proven -- the most that can ever be said for a theory is that it "has not yet been disproven".

Check out The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper for more about why this is so.