I see this word appear often in debates, usually when pseudo-science and theism are involved. From wikipedia.org I get the gist of: "For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation has not been made." I have seen the question asked: “Is atheism falisifiable? Since it's not, atheism isn't scientific.” And I have seen the claim that the universe was intelligently designed can be “falsified by demonstrating how the universe can come to be in the absence of a designer.” Are these logical and appropriate uses of the term? Do these lines of questioning bolster a theist’s case, or is it nonsense?