On contrare, scientific theories cannot be proven, they can merely be shown to apply for all known data points, obtained by experiments. However, all scientific theories can be disproven, and it is by doing so that we push our understandings of science.
The idea of
falsifiability is a popular way of understanding what makes a theory scientific, but it is not without its critics, including the logical positivists.
Most actual scientists, to the degree that they subscribe to any philosophy at all, tend towards positivism, which advocates a
verifiability model of science.
Quote:
Also, evolution as a theory has its flaws. Both its long-term form and creationism are unfalsafiable barring time machines or millions of years, and therefore neither of them is a true theory. I'm not even sure if they qualify as hypotheses.
That's, um, ridiculous. Even in the Popperian idea of science, it's not so much a question of whether every aspect of a scientific model
itself is falsifiable, but whether it allows us to make predictions which
are falsifiable. This is clearly the case with evolution, which would, for example, predict the existence of fossils, observable small-scale changes in animals species in the face of environmental change, the existence of vestigial organs, etc.
I think part of the problem some of the people in this debate have is that they are unaware that there is no one accepted theory about
how science works. (There are, of course, some general attributes of science that nearly everyone agrees upon, i.e. it tries to explain empirical phenomena in the most efficient way possible. It is upon these general ideas that we can base our arguments over whether evolution or ID are valid as scientific theories. Of course some people would contest even these basic ideas -- but then, what basis do we have left for argument?)