Forensic science makes use of empirical science. Thus when when an investigator uses ballistics to determine the path of a bullet he is using an empirical science. When he collects his evidence and says that Dillinger fired the shot he is making a forensic, non-empirical, conclusion. When Evolution studies the human genome it is engaging in an empirical science. When it concludes that random mutations and natural selection over a long period of time accounts for the variety of life it is making a forensic conclusion that is only conjecture. The confidence that we can place in such forensic conclusion is variable. Thus in court we see the need for "preponderance of the evidence" in civil court and "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court.
What about the theory that an invisible supernatural weathermaker causes many of the rain storms around the world? Is that deserving as a competing theory to Natural Meteorology? Should it be taught in schools as a rival theory?
Now you are being insulting as well as silly. This is based on the assumption that faith must be irrational and purely a matter of fideism. Anyone with a familiarity with philosophy would know that there are rational proofs for a belief in God in general and in the Christian revelation in particular. Inasmuch as human testimony is open to scientific study so is the witness of the Apostles. If the possibility of falsification by a random fossil find is enough to qualify Evolution as an empirical science then the same could be said of the Christian faith. The discovery of the tomb of Jesus with his bones intact would falsify it. Thus either both Evolution and Christianity are empirical sciences or neither is.
When a paleontologist compares hominid skulls he is using emprical science. When geneticists compare DNA of species to test evolutionary hypothese they are using empirical science. Evolution is grounded in empirical science.
When he collects his evidence and says that Dillinger fired the shot he is making a forensic, non-empirical, conclusion.
I don't see how a conclusion can be either un-empirical or empirical. A conclusion can be based on empirical evidence or not.
If all emprical evidence points at Dillenger firing the shot then the conclusion in this case is based on empirical evidence.
Equally the existance of the dinosaurs is based on empirical evidence. Noone was around to witness the dinosaurs existing, but empirical observation of fossils supports that conclusion.
When it concludes that random mutations and natural selection over a long period of time accounts for the variety of life it is making a forensic conclusion that is only conjecture. The confidence that we can place in such forensic conclusion is variable. Thus in court we see the need for "preponderance of the evidence" in civil court and "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal court.
Sure I agree that theories in science have variable confidence and are not proven. I just disagree that they are merely guesses/conjecture.
Now you are being insulting as well as silly. This is based on the assumption that faith must be irrational and purely a matter of fideism.
I wasn't being insulting. I was looking at the matter objectively. I was not assuming the Intelligent Designer of life was God, but a generic designer.
What I don't understand now is why you think an invisible intelligent creator of species isn't silly and is science but an invisible intelligent creator of rainclouds *is* silly and isn't science. This has nothing to do with religion, but how to determine whether explainations are scientific explainations, or not. I don't see how you can allow one as science, but not the other.
Anyone with a familiarity with philosophy would know that there are rational proofs for a belief in God in general and in the Christian revelation in particular.
Officially, Intelligent Design does not say the designer is God. It could be aliens or whatever. The general explaination is simply that an unknown designer created species over time.
If the possibility of falsification by a random fossil find is enough to qualify Evolution as an empirical science then the same could be said of the Christian faith. The discovery of the tomb of Jesus with his bones intact would falsify it. Thus either both Evolution and Christianity are empirical sciences or neither is.
if falsification was the only criteria for a scientific explaination then it would be.