Why are Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?

[T'ai Chi]

Dawkins uses the term Darwinist (as a favorable term) in The Blind Watchmaker.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Somebody explain to me how "This trait can not have arisen through Darwinian evolution" is not a testable claim. It seems to me that it is, as any possible proposed biological lineage that gives rise to the trait in question would count as disproof.

You're right it is a testable claim, it has been tested time and time again Darwinian evolution by natural selection has come out stronger than ever.

oh... yeah... you're right. I don't know what I was thinking. Maybe I meant to say that Dawkins being afraid of creationists is like Randi being afraid of Sylvia.

Here's the debate: http://richarddawkins.net/article,721,n,n

In fact, here is a slew of them: http://bevets.com/evolutionav.htm

Cheers, I tried the links a Dawkins' site before and they didn't work, I'll give it another go though.

 

[articulett]

I don't think it would be a bad idea to start coming up with naturalistic alternatives to Darwinian evolution, because if it falls apart at some point I don't want to be debating with people the intent of some designer who just can't be bothered to talk face to face about the intent of her design.

Do you not understand the overwhelming fantastic evidence brought forth via DNA that confirms evolution in technicolor details?!? The chimp and human genome? Chromosome #2? The vitamin C gene? Darwin never saw DNA--never knew what a chromosome was! Evolution is truly far more confirmed than everything we know about atoms or gravity. Really. Looking for an alternate explanation would be like looking to show that the earth might not really be a sphere--but a rhombus--or some other shape that we better get a jump on. Rest assured, if there are any other naturalistic explanations of any scientific credence whatsoever that negates evolution, Francis Collins, will be the first to discover it and expand upon it. And so would everyone who so desperately wants evolution to be wrong--they are a well funded group desperate for any scientific anything that will lend credence to their theory or obfuscate evolutions truth in the minds of the populace.

Shall we look for other alternative explanations for gravity while we explore other naturalistic explanations for evolution? Because gravity doesn't explain everything, you know...and we haven't figured out every single possible detail of it yet.

You're the one who thinks it's great to debate them--you come up with the "naturalistic alternative". While your at it...see if you can find a replacement for germ theory, because it doesn't explain everything--prion diseases for example--and we don't know everything about it--and I'm sure there are germ theorist deniers that would love to debate--Christian Scientists, for one.

 

[Beleth]

In fact, here is a slew of them: http://bevets.com/evolutionav.htm

Bevets... snicker.

I've heard of him from Fark. Someone went to the trouble of making a collectable-card-game card about him.

Summon Bevets

 

[articulett]

Originally Posted by whiteyonthemoon :
"Somebody explain to me how 'This trait can not have arisen through Darwinian evolution' is not a testable claim."

Somebody explain to me how "the oceans would spill out if the earth was a sphere" is not a testable claim?

 

[Mobyseven]

Dawkins uses the term Darwinist (as a favorable term) in The Blind Watchmaker.

Of all the points raised, of all the questions asked, you respond to THAT? You write ONE LINE of response, to one of the less important points being made on this thread?

You know, I could get to 10,000 posts in no time if all I wrote were one-liners like that and 'Interesting. [link]'.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Of all the points raised, of all the questions asked, you respond to THAT?

Does that really surprise you? T'ai Chi can't respond to any real points, because he's wrong on all of them.

 

[whiteyonthemoon]

Many theories can never be proven right, but can definitely be proven wrong. It is incumbent on the person who favors evolution to give criteria that they would accept as falsification.

Obviously some who believe in ID are lost causes. That's why it's important to find the best, most believable version of ID and critique it. That's the version that the potentially logical few ID
adherents will believe.

From the top -

Foster Zygote - I agree.

MRC_Hans - I may be wrong. How would you suggest that evolution is falsifiable? What would you accept as evidence of it being erroneous (I'm not saying that it is erroneous, but criteria for its falsification should be given). I have to stick by my comment that the parts of nature where it's not immediately clear how evolution has created the observed situation are most interesting to someone interested in further developing the theory.

pgwenthold - neither evolution nor ID are the sort of theory that make testable predictions. It's unfair to require predictive consequences of ID be tested when the same can't be done for evolution. These are theories of how things came to be the way they are. I totally agree about the false dichotomy thing, hence my call for other possible naturalistic explanatory mechanisms. It's true that any trait that could have arisen by evolution could also have arisen by ID. That's why they look for cases that could only have come by the latter and not the former to provide proof without equivocation. I'm sorry about the use of the term Darwinian Evolution, I was unaware of its connotations.

Dancing David(1) - The onus is on the one with the theory to give criteria for it's falsification. No theory is ever proven, only disproven. They are looking for cases for disproof of natural selection being the soul mechanism of the origin of all observed traits. They have been bad at stating what would falsify their view, and it's likely that they can't give any, since the designer won't communicate with us. I am aware that awesome progress in understanding natural selection does not require their input, and in fact they take things out of context and twist them. You might get a kick out of my first post in this thread. No I haven’t had extended discussions with ID proponents ever, but I'd like to think I would know how not to turn it into a flame war. I know better than to get into extended discussions with the lost causes.

Dancing David (2) - Thank you. I'll try to make myself at home.

Dancing David (3) - It's upon those who believe in evolution to give criteria for what it takes to disprove it. However, in the view of IDers, if one can't explain how a trait came to be through finite incremental changes of the sort that can occur through the mutation and recombination of existing, evolution has been falsified. This seems reasonable to me, though I am interested in other criteria for falsification. Personally I have no credible cohesive theory to advance as a replacement for evolution, should it be falsified. Again, sorry about the use of "Darwinian".
Dancing David (4) - I have no real defense of my statement "The claim that [evolution] explains all aspects of life everywhere that it is found is an extraordinary claim, and so it should require extraordinary evidence." It just seems to me to be true. It's why I think evolution is such an amazing theory, because believe it could do just that. As for what they do to build up their theory, the read papers by people who actually work in the lab or in the field and take stuff out of context or misconstrue it. That's the 10% that are there for reasons of power. The others just listen to what they say. They should be approached and given the truth of what those papers say. Natural selection is not falling apart, however I don't think attempts at deconstructing it should be met all with derision.

Bob Klase(1) - I don't know what to say.

Bob Klase(2) - I agree.

skeptigirl(1) - I haven’t thought much about this. Presumably ID people will point out that genetic similarity does not demonstrate unbroken lineage.

articulett(1) - I don't take Behe to be the head of the movement. Well, maybe in the Hydra(mythology) sense. If he is proven wrong, another more cunning person may take his place. I don't argue against the arguments that IDers are now making, but the more sophisticated ones they might make. Chop off the head, but burn the stump so that two don't grow back. Like I say, there will always be some unexplained aspect of nature for them to point to, but I guess I think that the process of showing people the power of naturalistic explanations is important. It's kind of a importance of journey over destination kind of thing, at least when it comes to the relationship between the general public and the cutting edge of human understanding. I'm very glad for the long history of people thinking the stars had sway over their destinies. It lead to the measurement of their movements in great detail, which lead to successive models of the universe, and eventually the heliocentric theory. It didn't happen over night, people needed to be convinced. The supression of free speach and public debate made it take longer than it might have. My guess is that young earthers, moonies and scientologists probably all believe in the potential of ID theory.

articulett (2) - I don't think I know one creationist. Not one I talk to about this stuff anyway. I think it's worth trying to have a rational conversation with them though. You may be right, I may burn out on arguing this stuff with them, if I don't burn out arguing it here first.

articulett (3) - I can't agree that evolution is a more advanced theory than atomic theory or the theory of gravity, but I guess it's a matter of opinion in a way. Incidentally, people still discuss the utility of those theories and where they break down, where they apply and where they don't. In rational tones even. If I came up with a naturalistic alternative to evolution I wouldn't argue with them, I'd meet enough resistance within the scientific community.

articulett (4) - I like your analogy. ID people are arguing that forces must be coming from a direction other than the one posited by evolution for the world to be as we observe it to be.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine"

I don't recall the exact wording, but there's an old saying about why it's a bad idea to wrestle with a pig. You just get all dirty and eventually realize that the pig enjoys it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Many theories can never be proven right, but can definitely be proven wrong. It is incumbent on the person who favors evolution to give criteria that they would accept as falsification.

Obviously some who believe in ID are lost causes. That's why it's important to find the best, most believable version of ID and critique it. That's the version that the potentially logical few ID
adherents will believe.

From the top -

Foster Zygote - I agree.

MRC_Hans - I may be wrong. How would you suggest that evolution is falsifiable? What would you accept as evidence of it being erroneous (I'm not saying that it is erroneous, but criteria for its falsification should be given). I have to stick by my comment that the parts of nature where it's not immediately clear how evolution has created the observed situation are most interesting to someone interested in further developing the theory.

pgwenthold - neither evolution nor ID are the sort of theory that make testable predictions. It's unfair to require predictive consequences of ID be tested when the same can't be done for evolution. These are theories of how things came to be the way they are. I totally agree about the false dichotomy thing, hence my call for other possible naturalistic explanatory mechanisms. It's true that any trait that could have arisen by evolution could also have arisen by ID. That's why they look for cases that could only have come by the latter and not the former to provide proof without equivocation. I'm sorry about the use of the term Darwinian Evolution, I was unaware of its connotations.

Dancing David(1) - The onus is on the one with the theory to give criteria for it's falsification. No theory is ever proven, only disproven. They are looking for cases for disproof of natural selection being the soul mechanism of the origin of all observed traits. They have been bad at stating what would falsify their view, and it's likely that they can't give any, since the designer won't communicate with us. I am aware that awesome progress in understanding natural selection does not require their input, and in fact they take things out of context and twist them. You might get a kick out of my first post in this thread. No I haven’t had extended discussions with ID proponents ever, but I'd like to think I would know how not to turn it into a flame war. I know better than to get into extended discussions with the lost causes.

Dancing David (2) - Thank you. I'll try to make myself at home.

Dancing David (3) - It's upon those who believe in evolution to give criteria for what it takes to disprove it. However, in the view of IDers, if one can't explain how a trait came to be through finite incremental changes of the sort that can occur through the mutation and recombination of existing, evolution has been falsified. This seems reasonable to me, though I am interested in other criteria for falsification. Personally I have no credible cohesive theory to advance as a replacement for evolution, should it be falsified. Again, sorry about the use of "Darwinian".
Dancing David (4) - I have no real defense of my statement "The claim that [evolution] explains all aspects of life everywhere that it is found is an extraordinary claim, and so it should require extraordinary evidence." It just seems to me to be true. It's why I think evolution is such an amazing theory, because believe it could do just that. As for what they do to build up their theory, the read papers by people who actually work in the lab or in the field and take stuff out of context or misconstrue it. That's the 10% that are there for reasons of power. The others just listen to what they say. They should be approached and given the truth of what those papers say. Natural selection is not falling apart, however I don't think attempts at deconstructing it should be met all with derision.

Bob Klase(1) - I don't know what to say.

Bob Klase(2) - I agree.

skeptigirl(1) - I haven’t thought much about this. Presumably ID people will point out that genetic similarity does not demonstrate unbroken lineage.

articulett(1) - I don't take Behe to be the head of the movement. Well, maybe in the Hydra(mythology) sense. If he is proven wrong, another more cunning person may take his place. I don't argue against the arguments that IDers are now making, but the more sophisticated ones they might make. Chop off the head, but burn the stump so that two don't grow back. Like I say, there will always be some unexplained aspect of nature for them to point to, but I guess I think that the process of showing people the power of naturalistic explanations is important. It's kind of a importance of journey over destination kind of thing, at least when it comes to the relationship between the general public and the cutting edge of human understanding. I'm very glad for the long history of people thinking the stars had sway over their destinies. It lead to the measurement of their movements in great detail, which lead to successive models of the universe, and eventually the heliocentric theory. It didn't happen over night, people needed to be convinced. The supression of free speach and public debate made it take longer than it might have. My guess is that young earthers, moonies and scientologists probably all believe in the potential of ID theory.

articulett (2) - I don't think I know one creationist. Not one I talk to about this stuff anyway. I think it's worth trying to have a rational conversation with them though. You may be right, I may burn out on arguing this stuff with them, if I don't burn out arguing it here first.

articulett (3) - I can't agree that evolution is a more advanced theory than atomic theory or the theory of gravity, but I guess it's a matter of opinion in a way. Incidentally, people still discuss the utility of those theories and where they break down, where they apply and where they don't. In rational tones even. If I came up with a naturalistic alternative to evolution I wouldn't argue with them, I'd meet enough resistance within the scientific community.

articulett (4) - I like your analogy. ID people are arguing that forces must be coming from a direction other than the one posited by evolution for the world to be as we observe it to be.

You are asking for evidence that would disprove an essentially proven theory. Despite the fact science does not use the terminology "proven theory", the genomic record does indeed prove evolution for all practical purposes.

When you can take the theory of evolution and make predictions, then construct experiments which test the theory and the experiments are carried out and the predicted results occur, you have proved your theory.

So what would be needed to reject the theory of evolution would be for those experiments to fail. But they have already succeeded.

 

[Lothian]

..... It's true that any trait that could have arisen by evolution could also have arisen by ID. That's why they look for cases that could only have come by the latter and not the former to provide proof without equivocation...........

But what is the later ? What is I.D.'s explanation ?

I.D. appears to consist of we don’t understand how this evolved therefore it must have been designed by an unknown deity (or bunch of aliens)?

Even if there are things that natural selection currently has difficulty explaining the default is not that it must have been designed by something.

There is no evidence of design by a supernatural being, and no reason why supernatural design should be the default any more than spontaneous creation by lightning strike.

 

[Darat]

...snip..

There is no way to prove a designer. It is not a question science asks. It is no different from asking science to prove a god exists. How do you formulate that test? You can't.

...snip...

I think that's a generalisation just a tad too far - science certainly can test for the existence of some definitions of a designer and of a God. My usual example (although the actual veracity has been questioned it works as a mind game example) is Zeus. If my god is Zeus and one of his properties is that he lives on Mount Olympus in a palace we can in fact disprove that Zeus exists by showing there is no such Palace on Mount Olympus. (Of course I can then just re-define my Zeus to say "it's an invisible palace" and so on and we do see this happening regularly with claims by the religious about their various gods.)

 

[Darat]

...snip...

So what would be needed to reject the theory of evolution would be for those experiments to fail. But they have already succeeded.

Devil's Advocate: "Not necessarily, there could be new theory that also makes the same predictions as the theory of evolution for those particular experiments but then also either explains other findings that evolution does not or makes predictions different to evolution that are then found to be correct."

Obvious ID doesn't do either of those so even if it wasn't just the religious doctrine of creationism dressed up in new words it still isn't the viable alternative to evolution theory its proponents like to claim it is.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Many theories can never be proven right, but can definitely be proven wrong. It is incumbent on the person who favors evolution to give criteria that they would accept as falsification.

That is called a falsifiable theory. To be scientifically testable, a theory must be either falsifiable or provable. Some, but not all, are both.

Obviously some who believe in ID are lost causes. That's why it's important to find the best, most believable version of ID and critique it.

Mmm, why, really?

MRC_Hans - I may be wrong. How would you suggest that evolution is falsifiable? What would you accept as evidence of it being erroneous (I'm not saying that it is erroneous, but criteria for its falsification should be given).

Evolution is falsifiable in several ways:

1) Lack of a sequenced fossil record.
2) Finding seriously out of sequence fossils (e.g. mammals in Cambriac era).
3) Lack of a mechanism where inheritable changes could occur.
4) No signs of relationship between various lineages and species.

More can be found, but these ahould be sufficient to show that evolution is a falsifiable theory (not that the fact that 3 of the 4 above falsifications have already failed does not make then any less valid).

I have to stick by my comment that the parts of nature where it's not immediately clear how evolution has created the observed situation are most interesting to someone interested in further developing the theory.

Obvoiously, you entitled to that viewpoint. In my view, however, it is more interesting to explore the mainstream evolutionary functions, since those are the ones with the greatest impact on our world.

pgwenthold - neither evolution nor ID are the sort of theory that make testable predictions. It's unfair to require predictive consequences of ID be tested when the same can't be done for evolution.

This is obviously wrong. Evolution makes numerous testable claims, and for this reason it is quite fair to require the same from any alternative proposal.

It's true that any trait that could have arisen by evolution could also have arisen by ID.

And this is the reason creationism is basically untestable: Any thing could arise from the interference by an omnipotent deity.

That's why they look for cases that could only have come by the latter and not the former to provide proof without equivocation.

However, this is an intrinsically lost cause. You will always be trying to prove a negative. Now, I can agree that one can imagine something that could only have come by through creation, but the fact is that such things are NOT observed in nature. All anybody has been able to find are a couple of things that seem to have evolved against considerable odds.

The onus is on the one with the theory to give criteria for it's falsification.

That is correct.

No theory is ever proven, only disproven.

That is not correct. A theory may be either falsified or proved.

They are looking for cases for disproof of natural selection being the soul mechanism of the origin of all observed traits. They have been bad at stating what would falsify their view, and it's likely that they can't give any, since the designer won't communicate with us.

ID is not a falsifiable theory. Even if every claim of evolution were to be unequivocally proven, you could still claim there was a designer.

It's upon those who believe in evolution to give criteria for what it takes to disprove it. However, in the view of IDers, if one can't explain how a trait came to be through finite incremental changes of the sort that can occur through the mutation and recombination of existing, evolution has been falsified. This seems reasonable to me, though I am interested in other criteria for falsification.

That is not a valid falsification. I can't explain exactly how they fabricated the engine in my car, but that doesn't mean anybody can conclude it happend by magic.

Hans

 

[Bob Klase]

Many theories can never be proven right, but can definitely be proven wrong. It is incumbent on the person who favors evolution to give criteria that they would accept as falsification.

Evolution has been through over 100 years of testing. Everything that could have falsified it up to now has failed. It's not incumbent on scientists to continue to come up with lists of things that could falsify it any more than it's incumbent on scientists to come up with a list of things that could falsify gravity or astronomy.

IDer's didn't like evolution so they went to the bible and found creationism. When that didn't fly they changed the name to ID and decided that if they could find a flaw in evolution theory then they would win by default.

Evolution is the well-supported and accepted theory based on all the evidence. ID wants to replace it with their theory hypothesis story, so it's incumbent on ID to present supporting evidence. So far their evidence pretty much consists of god some intelligent force did it and we can't understand god that intelligent force, therefore you can't prove that force doesn't exist.

It is incumbent on the person who favors evolution to give criteria that they would accept as falsification.

Why evolution and not every other branch of science?

 

[cyborg]

A dog giving birth to a cat, despite the usual creationist claims, would actually be a wonderful falsification of evolution since it's something that evolution would explicitly not predict.

 

[Dancing David]

Dawkins uses the term Darwinist (as a favorable term) in The Blind Watchmaker.

So that is your response? What about the OP? What about my response to your OP? What about the other critiques of your other link? Who censored the IDers, who is afraid to debate them?

I would hate to accuse you of being dishonest.

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing David(1) - The onus is on the one with the theory to give criteria for it's falsification. No theory is ever proven, only disproven. They are looking for cases for disproof of natural selection being the soul mechanism of the origin of all observed traits. They have been bad at stating what would falsify their view, and it's likely that they can't give any, since the designer won't communicate with us. I am aware that awesome progress in understanding natural selection does not require their input, and in fact they take things out of context and twist them. You might get a kick out of my first post in this thread. No I haven’t had extended discussions with ID proponents ever, but I'd like to think I would know how not to turn it into a flame war. I know better than to get into extended discussions with the lost causes.

falsification has been discussed repeatedly in this forum and it is not needed for a theory to be coherent. I believe that what is needed is the ability to make predections that match observations, or for a theory to make conclusions that are supported by the evidence. Falsification is nice, but when they looked at Einstien's prediction that gravity effected light, that was positive support of his theory. Not falsification.

Again, if ID makes a prediction that is upported by the evidence, lets have it.

There are some I can think of:

-there should be a limit on the mitochondrial drift in the human genome. There should only be one distinct line in the mitochondrial DNA.

-what evidence can be found that the genome was not randomly generated?

-what evidence is there that the RnA and DnA complex did not arise randomly?

_what evidence is there that archaebateria and fungi share the same DnA sequence that would be neede in RnA/DnA was create.

There are plenty of things that would indicate a creation of life, especialy the irreducible complexity issue.

Dancing David (2) - Thank you. I'll try to make myself at home.

Dancing David (3) - It's upon those who believe in evolution to give criteria for what it takes to disprove it.

Not really. It is upon the opposing theory to do that or to find data that doesn't fit the competing theory. Positive verification of a theory and falsification are semantic wordplay.

What does ID predict that can be observed. It is not a theory if it does not make observable predictions.

However, in the view of IDers, if one can't explain how a trait came to be through finite incremental changes of the sort that can occur through the mutation and recombination of existing, evolution has been falsified.

That is not needed for the theory of natural selection to occur, incrementalism is one of the errors of Darwin, which is why i say the IDers are at least twenty years behind. Punctuated equilibria and radiation are not incremental.

This seems reasonable to me, though I am interested in other criteria for falsification. Personally I have no credible cohesive theory to advance as a replacement for evolution, should it be falsified. Again, sorry about the use of "Darwinian".

I was being a word wonk. Sorry.

Dancing David (4) - I have no real defense of my statement "The claim that [evolution] explains all aspects of life everywhere that it is found is an extraordinary claim, and so it should require extraordinary evidence." It just seems to me to be true. It's why I think evolution is such an amazing theory, because believe it could do just that. As for what they do to build up their theory, the read papers by people who actually work in the lab or in the field and take stuff out of context or misconstrue it. That's the 10% that are there for reasons of power. The others just listen to what they say. They should be approached and given the truth of what those papers say. Natural selection is not falling apart, however I don't think attempts at deconstructing it should be met all with derision.

No they shouldn't when they are a theory with testable claims that aren't just waving hands and saying "I don't like it". The theory of ID should be able to make testable predictions for it to be a theory. Just waving hands and saying "That can not be!" is not a theory.

Natural selection does explain what has been observed to date, when something is observed that doesn't fit the theory, then the theory will change or be scrapped.

But just because lectrons could be really tiny monkeys on motor scooters doesn't mean that they are.

Bob Klase(1) - I don't know what to say.

Bob Klase(2) - I agree.

skeptigirl(1) - I haven’t thought much about this. Presumably ID people will point out that genetic similarity does not demonstrate unbroken lineage.

articulett(1) - I don't take Behe to be the head of the movement. Well, maybe in the Hydra(mythology) sense. If he is proven wrong, another more cunning person may take his place. I don't argue against the arguments that IDers are now making, but the more sophisticated ones they might make. Chop off the head, but burn the stump so that two don't grow back. Like I say, there will always be some unexplained aspect of nature for them to point to, but I guess I think that the process of showing people the power of naturalistic explanations is important. It's kind of a importance of journey over destination kind of thing, at least when it comes to the relationship between the general public and the cutting edge of human understanding. I'm very glad for the long history of people thinking the stars had sway over their destinies. It lead to the measurement of their movements in great detail, which lead to successive models of the universe, and eventually the heliocentric theory. It didn't happen over night, people needed to be convinced. The supression of free speach and public debate made it take longer than it might have. My guess is that young earthers, moonies and scientologists probably all believe in the potential of ID theory.

articulett (2) - I don't think I know one creationist. Not one I talk to about this stuff anyway. I think it's worth trying to have a rational conversation with them though. You may be right, I may burn out on arguing this stuff with them, if I don't burn out arguing it here first.

articulett (3) - I can't agree that evolution is a more advanced theory than atomic theory or the theory of gravity, but I guess it's a matter of opinion in a way. Incidentally, people still discuss the utility of those theories and where they break down, where they apply and where they don't. In rational tones even. If I came up with a naturalistic alternative to evolution I wouldn't argue with them, I'd meet enough resistance within the scientific community.

articulett (4) - I like your analogy. ID people are arguing that forces must be coming from a direction other than the one posited by evolution for the world to be as we observe it to be.[/QUOTE]

 

[Belz...]

I don't think it would be a bad idea to start coming up with naturalistic alternatives to Darwinian evolution, because if it falls apart at some point I don't want to be debating with people the intent of some designer who just can't be bothered to talk face to face about the intent of her design.

That's the catch: there is currently no alternative; natural or otherwise.

It's unfair to require predictive consequences of ID be tested when the same can't be done for evolution.

Exactly what about evolution is non-testable ?

 

[scotth]

Falsification is nice, but when they looked at Einstien's prediction that gravity effected light, that was positive support of his theory. Not falsification.

Uh, no.....

If the light had failed to bend, that would have been falsification. It did bend, many might consider that a confirmation, but it was really a failed falsification.

Theories make prediction that can be checked against reality. Every prediction made is one more potential falsification. Theories are supported by all the predictions that when checked fail to falsify it. It is the accumulations of huge masses of predictions that each failed to falsify, together with the absences of ANY failures, that 'confirm' a theory.

It takes exactly ONE verifable experiment that disagrees with any one of a theory's predictions and it is falsified. At which point, a new or modified theory needs to be found.

Evolution has been used to make countless (millions, literally) predictions in the last century. After mistakes in prediction and experiment have been accounted for, there are a grand total of ZERO failed predictions for evolution in all that time.

It is just a giant list of, if evolution is true we would expect to see x. Do we see x? Yes we do. Next.

And returning to ID, what predictions does ID make? As far as I can tell, ID's only prediction is that evolution will be falsified when checked against reality. So far, wrong a million times and counting. Even if the day comes when we find evidence contrary to what one would expect with evolution, that would still do not one thing to demonstrate that ID is correct.