""the entire scientific community accepts the theory of Evolution and agrees it is entirely falsifiable by any common understanding of the word"
No they don't."

Yes they do.

Was just browsing through an old thread that I commented on some time ago, loosely regarding this topic. What struck me was how much of a better debate it was than this one, people actually considered and researched their responses, made their positions clear were more civilised in general (aside from a couple of the usual fools). Maybe you'd like a peek at it freediver?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=164#15351

Absolutely, spendocrat.

I came across this post at Larvatus Prodeo this morning, and had the same thought:

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/08/15/science-and-religion-the-stoush/

I think Freediver should be given a chance.

Obviously freediver is trying to force innocent children into being taught Intelligent Design. For those who read science Intelligent Design is laughable, ignorant occult nonsense. For the believer Intelligent Design is a point of honour. Ever since the guru of Intelligent Design Erik Von Daniken was criticised for supporting his hypotheses of Intelligent Design on environmental fallacy , ID crackpots have been smarting and sulking ever since and are never heard but always laughed at. Except when they conspire to brainwash our children into believing in Intelligent Design, then they are scorned. We should show empathy for those burdened by Intelligent Design and give them a chance to explain the proof they have that aliens in flying saucers are responsible for evolution (there is no link to god or magic so nobody in their right mind would claim a god is behind evolution ). So for once let us hear what Freediver has to say without mockery and tongue in cheek shots.

Freediver please kindly support what you are saying and show us how Erik Von Daniken was right.

"I also think that the theory of common descent would be quite easy to falsify. It has often been tested, hasn’t it?"

No. It is impossible to test it empirically.

"I cannot believe the amount of tenacity displayed by one poster over a high-school definition that he once learned."

I am not just basing this on the high school definition. I have seen it used by Stephen Jay Ghould, Robert M Pirsig and many others. Furthermore, it is the only meaningful definition of science I ahve ever come across.

"I remember reading an article fairly recently about the phenomenon that if you ask most of the leading scientists, regardless of field of study, "what is science?" you would get reasonably different answers, that is because methods differ between fields, and reasonably so."

The definition I have given is common to most, if not all fields. If you asked a historian what history is, or a mathematician what maths is, they wouls stumble for a bit and come up with something different to their colleagues. That doesn't mean that you cannot define science, maths or history. It just means that it is a question of philosophy, which they may not be familiar with. Of course, they would be better at what they did if they were.

"This is because most natural phenomena do not lend themselves to direct control whereby one variable can be controlled, as in freedivers strict definition."

I'm not sure where you got this 'strict' definition from. It certainly wasn't me:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/what-is-experiment.html

"The most important aspect of science is not actually its explanatory power (believe it or not!), its actually its PREDICTIVE power."

Fortunately, the theory of evolution doesn't predict anything about the future, so it evades this inconvenient 'testing' stuff that other theories get subjected to.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-no-predictive-value.html

"Now show me a creationist prediction that is consistent with their hypotheses"

How is this relevant? Is this that false dichotomy argument again?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#false%20dichotomy

"""the entire scientific community accepts the theory of Evolution and agrees it is entirely falsifiable by any common understanding of the word"No they don't."Yes they do. "

Then why do they still call it a theory, when other theories become law even though they are expected to be disproven one day (eg Newton's laws). Why do they call it natural history, rather than science?

"Obviously freediver is trying to force innocent children into being taught Intelligent Design."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#ad%20hominem

Need I say more?

"Freediver please kindly support what you are saying and show us how Erik Von Daniken was right."

Perhaps you should read what I have already posted then try explaining why it is even relevant.

More info, and discussion without these silly limits:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1167973400