[ QUOTE ]
I don't think many people understand how hypothesis testing actually works in science. You can never prove that a hypothesis is true. All you can really say is that either a hypothesis is false and we should reject it, or that the evidence we have isn't sufficient to reject. A good hypothesis must be testable, falsifiable, and must let you make predictions about the world. If we test it repeatedly, it makes useful predictions, and we don't have enough evidence to reject it, it eventually gets accepted as a theory.
You never really get proof that a hypothesis is true. You can just test it more and more and lower the statistical probability that it is false. Eventually the likelihood that a theory is false becomes incredibly low, but you haven't proven it to be true. It is simply the best explanation so far for your observations.
In terms of evolution, it is an ever-changing theory. Parts get thrown out, new hypotheses are made and tested, etc. Creationism on the other hand is not testable and does not make any predictions. It is not even a scientific hypothesis. With that said neither theory can be "proven" to be true.
[/ QUOTE ]
Creationism in the guise of Intelligent design, can be as testable as you want it to be. The problem is, that any falsifiable hypothesis you create, is soon falsified.
[ QUOTE ]
My scientific version of ID predicts that creatures were designed intelligently, and therefore we will find no instances of stupid design in nature.
For example, the fish that live in dark caves will not have vestigial, non-functional eyes. That would be stupid.
Also, humans will not have muscles attached to the coccyx that, in other primates, are used to flex the tail but (since the human tail bones are all fused together) would be non-functional in humans. That would be stupid as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Link