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.
>

Tim,

The science is not what is testable. The science is what can be
disproved by an evidence. If there will be found a singe fact that comes
against the string theory then it will be the end for the string theory.

To the contrary, there could be no fact that disproves the ID or the
Communist theory. That's why it is not a science.

VLV