# Are Untestable Statements Necessarily "Bad Science"?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-untestable-statements-necessarily-bad-science/9400>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [January 25, 2020, 11:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-untestable-statements-necessarily-bad-science/9400 "2020-01-25T23:12:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 61

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2020, 1:26am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-untestable-statements-necessarily-bad-science/9400/61 "2020-02-11T01:26:07Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The argument is that the current evolutionary mechanisms proposed are not likely capable of overcoming the large probabilistic barriers. As a result a new mechanism is proposed.

Another rare moment of candor from a defender of ID Creationism: That ID is based on nothing more than denial of evoution, with no positive evidence in its favour.

Bill does err, however, in saying that a “new mechanism” is proposed. We’ve been bugging him for ages to detail the mechanism suggested by ID. No luck.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/are-untestable-statements-necessarily-bad-science/9400)._