(…) But invariably they’re talking about small-scale evolutionary changes that do not address the massive build-up of complexity that neo-Darwinian theory is supposed to be capable of explaining but gives no indication of being able to explain

Yup, that’s pretty much it. When you point to a Darwinian believer that we cannot see dinosaurs changing into birds, nor can we see land mammals turning into sea mammals, they usually fall back to the old “we can see changes in biological forms“.

Yeah, so?

We don’t want to know how two black cats can breed, and give birth to a white cat. We want to know what is the natural, unguided, undiriectioned force that is able to produce cats in the first place

Darwinism has made falsifiable predictions, and therefore is a viable theory

It is only a viable theory based on the predictions it has left (either “not yet confirmed” or “already confirmed”). Refuted predictions don’t count.

Darwinism has few left that have not already been falsified, hence Alexanian’s observation.

The “unfalsifiable” charge comes from when Darwinists pretend they never made the contradicted-by-evidence predictions and even worse, when they act as if they had always believed the contrary.

In this way, they render themselves immune to data and their theory retreats into unfalsifiable, Just-So land.

True, it has great explanatory power, but a viable theory must have more than that. It must make predictions which can be falsified or confirmed.

(atom:)

Let’s not forget all the falsified predictions made by Darwinism

If Darwinism has made predictions that have been falsified, then Alexanian is mistaken: Darwinism has made falsifiable predictions, and therefore is a viable theory, not just a “set of curious conjectures.” It happens to be a false theory, but still a theory.

I agree with the sentiment, but we can’t have our cake and eat it too: Darwinism can’t be both unfalsifiable and falsified. Darwinists say the same about ID too (unfalsifiable, and falsified). Based on atom’s list, it sounds like Darwinism is falsifiable.

I wonder if any Darwinist would be so kind as to illuminate what that ‘extra’ criterion might be and explain why it only applies to ID and nothing else.

What the Darwinists claim is lacking in ID is a non-supernatural “mechanism.” This is not an “extra” criterion, but the Darwinists claim that Darwinism satisfies this criterion whereas ID does not. But what good is Darwinism’s mechanism of evolution by natural random mutations if that mechanism is implausible and unproven? Also, many critics of Darwinism accept the mechanism of adaptation by natural selection, but adaptation by natural selection does not explain co-evolution, which is the evolution of mutual dependence of two different kinds of organisms, e.g., bees and flowers. In co-evolution, unlike evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment such as land, water, air, and climate, there is often nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent features in the other organisms are likely to be initially absent.

I think Jonathan Wells’ “Icons Of Evolution” does this.

I distinctly recall seeing a Nova special about string theory, where at least one scientist (Neil Degrasse-Tyson, if memory serves) state specifically that String Theory does not yet rise to the level of science since it cannot be tested.

DonaldM, I am curious if have you heard a biologist say anything at all about String Theory?

Considering all the false claims of Darwinism it should be considered the greatest hoax in scientific history.

I just wish that the great examples of ID, such as the bacterial flagellum, were as well know by the public as evolution.