[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So if I understand what you are saying, then something can be scientific and false and something else can be non-scientific but true.  Silly me, I always thought that science was in search of truth.

In any event, this definition throws out a whole class of mathematical theorems as non-scientific.  Since many of these theorems are used by scientists, does that make the ultimate work non-scientific?

Technically you are right about the theory of evolution not addressing the origins of life, but I know of no evolutionist who does not automatically make the unconscious assumption that it does (see the pre-biotic crowd).

I'm not so certain that chaos theory isn't applicable to random chance.  IOW, if we knew all the factors involved in the coin flip, we could predict with perfect accuracy the outcome.  Just because we don't know all the factors doesn't make the outcome random.  Its just that we don't know.  We can't prove it false - just like ID (note that I don't treat ID as a be-all that stands on it's own like evolutionism and creationism are supposed to do.  Rather I treat it as a small part of a larger picture that explains what random chance cannot).

[Gumlegs]

So if I understand what you are saying, then something can be scientific and false and something else can be non-scientific but true. Silly me, I always thought that science was in search of truth.

You must not understand me, then. "Falsifiable" doesn't mean "false."