Period.
It is critical that theories be stated in such a way that they can be disproved, or they are not theories. If they are not theories, then they are not science. QED.
Theology does not state its concepts in ways that are disprovable. They are not science, they are metaphysics. I personally think metaphysis is very cool. Matters of the spirit, the soul, God, angels, demons, monsters, and things that go bump in the night - very interesting stuff. But unless the studies are done using the scientific method - not science.
Why the heck do certain people want to make them science, anyway? Unless and until science comes up with some way of accessing the dimensions >3 space, it ain't gonna happen.
Science, however, in the proper sense of the term, includes all that comes under the compass of human knowledge. Scientia is the Latin term for knowledge. If you want to reserve true knowledge for only those things that are provable, you will back yourself up to give a philosophical justification for the criteria of of a legitimate proof.
Then Intelligent Design should be taught in schools instead of evolution. Let's compare the two theories side by side. First Darwin on the eye and then Behe on the eye:
He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.
From: Origin of the Species, Chapter 6
Compare the above with the quote below on the same subject:
What is needed to make a light sensitive spot? What happens when a photon of light impinges on the retina?
When a photon first hits the retina, it interacts with a small organic molecule called II-cis-retinal. The shape of retinal is rather bent, but when retinal interacts with the photon, it straightens out, isomerizing into trans-retinal. This is the signal that sets in motion a whole cascade of events resulting in vision. When retinal changes shape, it forces a change in the shape of the protein rhodopsin, which is bound to it. Now part of the transducin complex dissociates and interacts with a protein called phosphodiesterase, When that happens, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability chemically to cut a small organic molecule called cyclic-GMP, turning it into 5'-GMP. There is a lot of cyclic-GMP in the cell, and some of it sticks to another protein called an ion channel. Normally the ion channel allows sodium ions into the cell. When the concentration of cyclic-GMP decreases because of the action of the phosphodiesterase, however, the cyclic-GMP bound to the ion channel eventually falls off, causing a change in shape that shuts the channel. As a result, sodium ions can no longer enter the cell, the concentration of sodium in the cell decreases, and the voltage accross the cell membrane changes. That in turn causes a wave of electrical polarization to be sent down the optic nerve to the brain. And when interpreted by the brain, that is vision. So this is what modern science has discovered about how Darwin's 'simple' light sensitive spot functions.
From: Michael Behe, 'Design at the Foundation of Life".
Now which one of the two is science and which one is not - the charlatan Darwin or the biologist Behe?????