as Well, I’d liek you to take a look at just what consititutes science and what doesn’t- Karl Popper introduced an unscientific criteria for science inthat somethign must be falsifiable to be concidered science- Evolutionists opposed to any opposing hypothesis have taken this unscientific criteria and shoved it in the faces of ID and Creationsism as though it has some kind of scientific weight when infact it doesn’t- A theory is simply:
theo·ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.
science is:
sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied
While it is an interesting proposal to see if somethign can be falsified, falsifiability are MOT what constitute TRUE science
http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp
Although I am a layman, the two articles I read relied, entirely it appears, on Behe's irreducable complexity arguments. Is this correct?