November 11, 2005 [LINK]
Scientific theories and evolution
Bravely wrestling with the confusing issues surrounding the debate over "Intelligent Design" versus evolution, Uriah Kriegel at Tech Central Station (link via Instapundit) explains the various kinds of theories there are, and the various ways to evaluate theories. He [cites] one of my intellectual heroes, Karl Popper, a mid-20th Century philosopher who emigrated from Austria to Great Britain:
Popper concluded that the mark of true science was falsifiability: a theory is genuinely scientific only if it's possible in principle to refute it. This may sound paradoxical, since science is about seeking truth, not falsehood. But Popper showed that it was precisely the willingness to be proven false, the critical mindset of being open to the possibility that you're wrong, that makes for progress toward truth.
Much like Marxism, he continues, "Intelligent Design" cannot be falsified, and therefore does not qualify as a scientific theory. The notion that the natural world was created by an Intelligent Designer certainly may be true (I believe so), but it cannot be proven or disproven on the basis of concrete evidence, so it shouldn't be taught in schools. A person might reflect on the wondrous, intricate forms of life around him or her and conclude that there must be a Creator, but there is simply no objective basis upon which to convince another person with a skeptical mind, which is one of the foremost attributes of a scientist. Prove it! Actually, "prove" is too strong a word when it comes to scientific research. That word is more properly used in mathematical deductive reasoning, as in geometric theorems. "Substantiate" is a much better term, because it leaves open the possibility of further refinement, to which all theories are subject.
As for the misunderstandings over evolution in particular, I remain convinced that the crux of the matter lies in the mathematics that underlie genetic mutations, and the possibility that apparently random mutations embody "stochastic resonance." That is a verifiable proposition, and I have seen some scientific research along those lines, based on Chaos theory. Common sense tells us that evolutionary change based on random behavior implies the absence of any Plan or Guiding Influence, which is why many people on both sides of the debate tend to equate Darwin with Atheism. Chaos theory shows that such extremely complex patterns often have their origins in simple nonlinear deterministic systems, however. One might interpret that as part of a Master Plan, but that would depart from true science and head into the realm of metaphysical philosophy.
Meanwhile, Pope Benedict came down strongly on the side of Intelligent Design. See Washington Post. What would Bishop Gene Robinson say? 
UPDATE: According to Phil Faranda, Pat Robertson has weighed in on this important issue. Voters in Dover, [PA] removed the school board after it tried to impose intelligent design into the science curriculum, and Pat warned its citizens not to ask for God's help if there is a disaster in their area. Also see the official blog of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Oh, oh, here we go again... The fact that no one at CBN seems to have the nerve to tell the boss he's off his rocker after repeated mega-gaffes does not reflect well on their credibility.