| 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] |
Valid point. I was thinking about the possibility of evidence against evolution that could be conclusive (e.g., finding fossils from widely different time periods co-located in the same rock layer), but decided to leave it out to keep my response short. It is certainly true that, even as a "fact" evolution is still subject to refutation by evidence, although, so far, all the evidence found supports the evolutionary model we presently have constructed. ID, on the other hand, as John points out, is not susceptible to refutation and therefore cannot be considered a scientific theory in any sense. And furthermore, not only can it not be refuted in principle, it can also make no useful predictions about what we should expect to find, while the evolution model makes many of them.
Not to take away from Hugh's point, which I agree with, but I wince a little bit whenever I hear appeals to the amount of "supporting evidence" for a theory without an accompanying assessment of the degree to which the theory may be *vulnerable* to evidence. After all, proponents of intelligent design can also point to overwhelming supporting evidence. The difference is that it is entirely inconceivable that any evidence could ever be found that is inconsistent with ID.