"A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable."
Krauthammer conveniently uses the negative here. Science's role, traditionally, has been to prove an assumption. Through reproducable experiment or direct observation. You develop a "theory" then test it one way or another.
Darwinism has failed here. So now, according to Krauthammer, our role is to "disprove" something, be it Darwinism or ID.
"You develop a "theory" then test it one way or another. "
That's simply wrong. A hypothesis is what you test one way or the other; a theory is what happens what that hypothesis has been tested repeatedly and widely accepted by scientists as true.
Darwinism has failed here. So now, according to Krauthammer, our role is to "disprove" something, be it Darwinism or ID.
A quick review:
Now, some definitions (from a google search):Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
You develop a hypothesis (not an assumption), and test it. If it is supported in the long run it can become a theory.
You do not "prove an assumption. Through reproducable experiment or direct observation." Neither "reproducable experiment" nor "direct observation" is required by science. A theory can never be proved, only supported or not supported.
"Darwinism" has been supported, not failed, as you claim:
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have [from an NSF abstract cited in RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread].It is interesting to see how some on these threads criticize the way science, particularly evolution, works and demand the most exacting of "scientific proof" all the while pushing ID, essentially a religious belief which has no evidence, no method, no falsifiable hypotheses, and certainly no proof.
No wonder Kansas had to redefine "science" to try to get ID in the back door.