If it never gets farther than that, it'll remain a fringe discipline.

What string theorists are presumably looking for is to push their theory in every direction they can think of, in hopes that it will somehow, somewhere turn out to predict a testable consequence different from that to be expected under non-string principles. Possibly some subatomic particle will be found to have zigged 0.00000047% more than it zagged. Or there may be some more elegant, currently unimagined test.

Although I'm a physics grad student, I'd be hard pressed to say that I know much about string theory.

Part of the comments here have been correct as far as what the term "untestable" means.

If a theory is untestable, it's not "hard to test" it is hypothetically impossible to invent a test and a result that would prove it wrong.

Gravity, for a crude example, is testable because if I drop my pencil, and it doesn't fall, then it would be wrong. It is both testable and falsifiable.

String theory, from what I've read, is fundamentally testable, and it looks like CERN's newest accelerator will be able to test one of the predictions of ST.

In any case, that hopefully helps clear things up.

If you want to learn more about string theory (time well spent), check out "The Elegant Universe" available on DVD from your friends at Netflix. Its about science, so many Bushites won't like it.

I also caught a string theory program on the science channel which had some really remarkable discussion about the big bang. Can't recall the title.

Still, I'm curious how ST advocates would differentiate themselves from ID. "We can test string theory....just as soon as we get 'a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way'" seems unsatisfying to me as a defense of testability.

Still, Jon's argument is quite plausible, as an argument against string theory.

I would suggest that string theory at least has its origins in relatively rigorous disciplines (math, physics). For comparison, black holes, IIRC, were predicted by mathematical physics long before they were discovered, if indeed one's been "discovered" to everyone's satisfaction.

So I think that one reason to pursue string theory is that, if it's developed enough, it'll be found to impinge on Testable Reality enough to generate a possible experiment.

The same cannot be said of ID, which originates in wishful thinking, willful ignorance, and an utter lack of any prospect of testability.

Let me start with saying I know damn little about string theory. I know it is someting in physics and I've heard there is some hopes of it being the the "unifying theory of phsyics". Beyond that my knowledge ends.

However, one thing about testability is that there is a possibility of testing the theory. For example, if IDists said, "Venusians made us, and as soon as we can send some sort of probe to Venus all will become clear." while still a bit whacky, at least has the prospect of being testable in that we could send a probe to Venus someday.

However, having a divine designer renders ID untestable. That, is not having a current test does not necessarily making something untestable, but being untestable means you'll never have a test.

Maybe somebody who knows something about string theory will see this thread and comment.

Put simply, if we propose that human intelligence constitutes the tentative seed of the universe, the universal common ancestor, or the cosmic system’s input and output, then we have a scientific theory which is based solidly on the existence of human intelligence.

Let me see if I understand that. If we propose X, then we have a scientific theory which is based solidly upon the existence of X. Isn't that called "begging the question"?

Then He, when all of the commotion of the Big Bang was over, and stars formed and reformed, and all of the elements were made, and suitable earthly environments became available, made the first DNA, through the Holy Spirit, the same way that the Holy Spirit “Hovered over Mary” and presumably crafted the DNA of Christ.

Not unlike how God caused a few million Jews to vanish from Europe in a twinkling of an eye, leaving the poor innocent Germans pegged for the "so-called Holocaust"?

Anyway, for all we know, God created the universe 30 minutes ago, including our memories, the fossil record, etc. He may do this every hour on the hour. Can I prove that he doesn't? Nope. Can I prove that he does? Nope.

The findings of astrophysics that the parameters of our universe are exquisitely fine-tuned for the production of human life -- similarly as the parameters of a mighty oak are precisely fine-tuned for the production of acorns -- allow us to infer that human intelligence generated the universe for the production of human intelligence in its own image, similarly as a seed creates a tree for the purpose of self-reproduction.

Put simply, if we propose that human intelligence constitutes the tentative seed of the universe, the universal common ancestor, or the cosmic system's input and output, then we have a scientific theory which is based solidly on the existence of human intelligence.

Naturally it may be argued that human life is not the highest and most complex form of life in the universe. Whether it is true or not, we do not know. What we do know beyond any reasonable doubt is that there is absolutely no confirmable evidence in favor of the belief that a life form superior to human life exists. But if anyone keeps insisting that human life is not the highest form of life in existence, where is the evidence that a life form superior to human life exists, or can come into existence? The person, who argues that a life form superior to human life exists, or can come into existence, has the burden to deliver the tangible evidence.

So the proposal that human life constitutes the cosmic system's tentative and tangible output remains valid. Only the discovery of an even more superior output can falsify that theory, or the demonstration that the principle of causality, stating that no cause can produce an effect superior to itself, or give more than what it has, is invalid. Those who intend to make that demonstration have no small task because this principle has never been falsified.

Since we identify human life or intelligence as the seed of the universe, or its input and output, those who allege that there is no scientific theory of creation have no case. Human intelligence, just as the human genome, is indubitably available for scientific study. So the argument that ID is religion, not science, is rendered invalid.

Because descent from one universal common ancestor is the essence of Darwin's theory of evolution, the theory that human intelligence is the universal common ancestor of the entire universe actually reinforces Darwin's main contribution to science.

Thus the conflict is not about descent from one universal common ancestor, but about the properties of the common ancestor. Whereas Darwin proposed descent from a simple beginning, the scientific theory of creation proposes descent from the existing highest form of intelligence, which universal common ancestor is human life, pending the discovery of an even higher form of non-human life.

To conclude, Darwin correctly posits universal common descent, but incorrectly derives the richness of life from a simple beginning or common ancestor. That major defect renders his otherwise sound theory irrational and therefore vulnerable to challenges.

I don't see a problem with having more than one source of DNA design. Suppose that God the Creator created the universe, as we know it, with its built in propensity for organic life.

Then He, when all of the commotion of the Big Bang was over, and stars formed and reformed, and all of the elements were made, and suitable earthly environments became available, made the first DNA, through the Holy Spirit, the same way that the Holy Spirit "Hovered over Mary" and presumably crafted the DNA of Christ.

Thereafter Gods creations - folks like us, or how we may become - spread forth into the rest of the still growing universe. They, in the fullness of time, became as gods and were expected to design, as required, for a flourishing and growing House of God with many Mansions.

None of this is excessively fabulous, considering the topic. God may not have needed to do too much jigging,of the DNA, himself because He wanted to see what would flow out of mutation and natural selection. Nonetheless, He has the ability to reach in and do some jigging when He wishes. You, or I, can go into the HTML of our sites and cause an effect, why can't God on his site?