Evolution is not a scientific theory

[freediver]

This is the relevant meaning in the context of falsifiability and the modern scientific method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a second sense "empirical" in science may be synonymous with "experimental." In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation.

[freediver]

This is my punishment for not reading it all. Did you notice this in the evidence you presented SN?

Criteria for a Scientific Theory
To fully understand how and why evolution is scientific, it's important to first know what the generally accepted criteria for scientific theories are. Scientific theories must be:
•Consistent (internally & externally)
•Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
•Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
•Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
•Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
•Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
•Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
•Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

[Super Nova]

This is the relevant meaning in the context of falsifiability and the modern scientific method:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a second sense "empirical" in science may be synonymous with "experimental." In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation.

The second sense is specific in it's use a a synononym.

Empirical covers both overservation or experimental.

The word empirical denotes information acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical data are data produced by an observation or experiment.

A central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses. It is usually differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective empirical or the adverb empirically. The term refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to, and derived from, our experiences or observations.

[Super Nova]

This is my punishment for not reading it all. Did you notice this in the evidence you presented SN?

Criteria for a Scientific Theory
To fully understand how and why evolution is scientific, it's important to first know what the generally accepted criteria for scientific theories are. Scientific theories must be:
•Consistent (internally & externally)
•Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
•Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
•Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
•Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
•Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
•Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
•Tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)

No... good catch. I missed the fact that was not addressed.

However Popper said:

"Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection."

While Popper maintained that "In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural selection" was "not only refutable but actually refuted", this criticism applied only to a subset of the natural selection model of evolution, and not evolutionary science as a whole.

He later wrote in a letter to the New Scientist in 1980:

"... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."

So it is testable.

[freediver]

So it is testable.

Of course it is. Just like my unicorn theory. But it is not scientific.

[IQS.RLOW]

So it is testable.

Of course it is. Just like my unicorn theory. But it is not scientific.

ITT: Freeloader admits that AGW is not scientific. The consensus is dead

[Super Nova]

So it is testable.

Of course it is. Just like my unicorn theory. But it is not scientific.

We disagree.

[freediver]

Perhaps you should have another go at explaining what your argument is, without quoting other people.

[Super Nova]

The only proof I an provided is to quote leaders in the scientic community or articles on their views or valid reference sources.

Let me think about it.

[freediver]

The only way to tell for sure whether you understand your own argument is to attempt to put it into your own words. Otherwise you are not actually making an argument, just copying in random quotes and expecting others to do all the thinking.