[rrr51]

I keep hearing that ID is not a scientific theory. That's right, but evolution isn't either. Like ID, it can't be disproved and it doesn't predict anything.

[orionblamblam]

> Like ID, it can't be disproved and it doesn't predict anything.

Wrong to both. Evolution could be fairly easily disproved *if* it were untrue (human and tyranosaur fossils together, a snake giving birth to a goat, humans and chimps turnign out to have very different DNA, cats more closely genetically linked to fish than to dogs, etc.), and it is regularly used to make predictions (that have generally been borne out).

[ndt]

"Like ID, it can't be disproved and it doesn't predict anything."

Sure it can and yes it does. There are dozens and way to disprove evolution, for example, prove that mutations stop after x generation.

[dread78645]

... [evolution], it can't be disproved and it doesn't predict anything.

Pre-cambrian rabbit. Single point ERVs.
Nylonase, Pentachlorophenol (PCP) metabolism.
The Wnt-3a gene responsible for apoptosis, removing the tail of a human embryo after it has formed.
Porcine, Bovine, Humulin, Humalog, and Novolog insulin.

Nope nothing there at all. Teach the Controversy!

[Ichneumon]

I keep hearing that ID is not a scientific theory.

Correct.

That's right, but evolution isn't either.

Incorrect.

Like ID, it can't be disproved and it doesn't predict anything.

Here, maybe you might want to try to learn something before you spew nonsense again. Read all the sections, especially those labeled "predictions" and "potential falsifications".