| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
The issue is not that scientists guess about things, but that the
guesses are testable, and that when they are found to be wrong,
they are abandoned.
But, Hugh, they AREN'T all testable. For a long time, many of
Einstein's predictions were untestable. I don't know how you would
go about testing string theory or any number of other things that we
lump into "science".
What you mean, I think, to say is that we already had (or have)
theories that made the same predictions in the range of parameter
space that had (or has) been explored, specifically Newton's law of
universal gravitation and quantum chromodynamics so that choosing
between them was (or is) not immediately possible. But GR and string
theory did (and do) make specific predictions that are unreconcilable
with these older theories and that most certainly are testable even
if the technology for performing those tests was (or is) currently
unavailable.
The situation with ID could not possibly be more different. Because
it rules out nothing, it is untestable even in principle.
To summarize:
1. ID is not science BECAUSE it is invulnerable to evidence.
2. GR, string theory, and evolution are science because they are
vulnerable--indeed, exquisitely so--to evidence.