"GOOD! Because those would falsify the current theory of evolution."
It is. It is a false, fraudulent, fake and phony theory based on speculation.
Now, now, don't gimme that phony baloney "falsify" criteria for verifying whether a theory is provable or not. (I saw a thread on this last night.)
Is this referring to the theory of evolution?
If so, is this your opinion, or do you have some evidence to support this?
You refer to something from last night. I was off-thread last night, so you will have to be more specific.
You mean this thread?
The author distorts the criteria of "falsifiability". The bottom line is, a theory must be testable. Evolution is a testable theory - it has a myriad of concrete consequences that can be searched for, observed, and otherwise verified. ID has shown none. That is why intelligent design and creationism proponents can't get their work published in any scientific journal.
The author also compares ID to SETI. Not a totally apt comparison, but there is one good analogy there. Neither has found what they are looking for. But, how many SETI proponents try to get schools to teach that space aliens exist before they've found evidence for them?
The best line from that "article":
Scientists who deviate in their public writings or teachings from the prevailing naturalistic orthodoxy are now ostracized, ridiculed, and sometimes even denied tenure or research funding. Those dissenters are modern day Galileos who are standing up to the Neo-Darwinian dogma and the misleading attacks by its believers, who fear the truth just as the church did centuries ago.
Michael Behe, you're no Galileo.
Why is falsifiability 'phony baloney'?