[Onelifetogive]

Not if B was proven wrong even earlier than theory A's downfall, *and* doesn't even rise to the level of a scientific theory in the first place.

You are saying that "Intelligent Design" has already been proven wrong and really isn't even a theory???????

[balrog666]

You are saying that "Intelligent Design" has already been proven wrong and really isn't even a theory???????

Well, you're half right.

[Ichneumon]

[Not if B was proven wrong even earlier than theory A's downfall, *and* doesn't even rise to the level of a scientific theory in the first place.]

You are saying that "Intelligent Design" has already been proven wrong and really isn't even a theory???????

"Intelligent Design" wasn't the issue in the post to which I was responding. The suggested alternative to evolution in that post was "the world and everything in it" being created in the span of "seven days". That notion is neither a theory, in the scientific sense, nor supported by the evidence -- in fact the evidence falsifies it, whether evolution is true or not.

But since you ask, no, "ID" is indeed not a theory (in the scientific sense) -- or at least none of its proponents have constructed a theory of it -- and as such it's vague enough and epistemologically empty enough that it can neither be disproven nor proven in its current form.