Rune Allnor wrote:
> Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>
>>Just Cocky wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:48:50 -0500, Stan Pawlukiewicz
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Stan Pawlukiewicz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Only theories that can generate testable predictions are properly
>>>>>>>subjects of science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How about string theory?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>String theory is now in its infancy. People find it interesting and are
>>>>>exploring its ramifications. If none of that leads ultimately to a
>>>>>testable prediction, it will fade away.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jerry
>>>>
>>>>So it should not be mentioned in any public school science class,
>>>>because it really isn't a science yet. It might be interpreted as the
>>>>establishment of a pasta deity.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>String theory is a speculative theory. But it's scientific because it
>>>is, in principle, falsifiable.
>>
>>So if it's falsified, then it's a valid scientific theory? Please
>>explain this further. I don't get it.
>
>
> A theory is "scientific" if one can make some prediction based
> on the theory, and then design an experiment to see if the prediction
> holds. Some theories pass this test, others don't. What we know as
> "science" is the set of theories that repeatedly pass this test.
>
> Rune
>
So by this criteria string theory is, what?

Can someone describe a prediction that evolution has made that was
verified by experiment? What about dark matter in astronomy? It seem
that it take a bit of faith to believe that the experiments exist.