Tim Wescott wrote:
> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>
>>> It's not important to defend the theory of evolution as such. It's
>>> vitally important for us as a society to know what is science and
>>> what is not. I don't object to alternatives to evolution or to those
>>> who believe them to be true. I do object to calling any of the
>>> currently touted alternatives "science". Only theories that can
>>> generate testable predictions are properly subjects of science.
>>
>>
>>
>> How about string theory?
>>
> If you watch the "The Elegant Universe" you'll see one of the leading
> string theorists saying that at the moment string theory is untestable,
> so for the moment it is just philosophy. Which is why there are string
> theorists out there working hard trying to figure out how to test it.
>
For the benefit of others:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

I don't think he said it is just philosophy. My memory is selective so
you might indeed be correct. I would call string theory an Aristolean
scientific theory.