Can Evolution Theory Be Falsified?

[Rade]

...at most we can say that currently a system based on methodological naturalism has more arguments 'pros' and thus deserves to be, provisionally, at the basis of current science...

We can also recognize that all arguments from ID derive from "outside science", that is, by definition ID is an argument derived from the "supernatural". Even a Republican appointed federal judge in PA recognized that ID arguments on origin of species derive from "supernatural" as path to knowledge, not science. Here then the text of the PA lawsuit claim: "Although it may not require a literal reading of Genesis, [ID] is creationism because it requires that an intelligent designer started or created and intervened in a natural process," Leshner said. "ID is trying to drag science into the supernatural and redefine what science is and isn't."--and see this link to read what National Academy of Science has to say about ID:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design. Also, of course all must have an open mind--perhaps someday natural selection will be found to be wanting as primary mechanism of organic evolution--but let us not then suggest that the alternative scientific explanation will obtain from supernatural (ID), not a very logical approach to the issue IMO.

 

[O Great One]

It's a waste of time debating evolution on this board. If anybody falsifies evolution (which isn't that hard to do), the moderator will simply delete the post. The year is 1600. Evolution is the equivalent of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, intelligent design is the equivalent of the Copernicun model of the solar system, and the moderator gets to play the role of the Church. Shame! Shame! Shame!

 

[Another God]

It's a waste of time debating evolution on this board. If anybody falsifies evolution (which isn't that hard to do), the moderator will simply delete the post. The year is 1600. Evolution is the equivalent of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, intelligent design is the equivalent of the Copernicun model of the solar system, and the moderator gets to play the role of the Church. Shame! Shame! Shame!

Hahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahaha

Hahahahaha

*sigh*

your analogy is an amusing one, particularly since you are 150 years to late, and you have got yoru sides mixed up. Evolution is the galilean view of the solar system and creationism is the ptolomaic.

The Church CLINGS to the old view, that the Earth is the center of the universe : The Church CLINGS to the old view, that God created everything as it is.

Galileo is outcase by the church for daring to challenge the accepted notions : Darwin was outcast by most religious people in society for daring to challenge the accepted notions.

Only through time and accumulating evidence was the sun centered view accepted. Similarly, its only over time that all of science has absolutely accepted evolutionary theory.

There is no debate. Only the old-school fundamentalists believe there is a debate, and it is only amongst themselves they fund support.

The moderators delete new topics in this forum because there is no room for Creationism in a scientific forum. try to get it. Creation isn't science. ID = Creationism.

If you want to try to present your point of view on the matter, try the Evolution Vs Creation forums...they will happily talk about it. But even there it is quite clear that Evolutionary theory is undeniably scientifically true, and creationism is just a religious belief.

Shane

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's a waste of time debating evolution on this board. If anybody falsifies evolution (which isn't that hard to do), the moderator will simply delete the post. The year is 1600. Evolution is the equivalent of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, intelligent design is the equivalent of the Copernicun model of the solar system, and the moderator gets to play the role of the Church. Shame! Shame! Shame!

Crackpot points for comparisons to Galileo or Copernicus. If it "isn't hard to do", why have all the creationists and ID mavens failed to do it?

 

[Another God]

If it "isn't hard to do", why have all the creationists and ID mavens failed to do it?

And for anyone who hasn't seen this yet, this is the COOLEST page ont he internet when it comes to Evolution discussion:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

A COMPLETE list of every argument against evolution, for Creation, For ID, etc etc.

All of them. you name the crackpot claim, and its there and already addressed.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Isn't falsification something that someone would strive to do to a theory in order to improve it? Why would creationists want to falsify evolution if that is the case, since it is my understanding that just because something is falsified doesn't mean it's false. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: I looked it up on wikipedia and it said "Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an observation that would show the proposition to fall short of being a tautology, even if that observation is not actually made" which is the main gripe that Evolutionists (or scientists if you prefer) have with creationists, is that in creation everything can be explained by "God made it that way".

 

[Another God]

No, falsifying something does indeed make it 'false' or 'wrong'...but does the point of falsification make the whol theory wrong, or just an attribute of the theory?

For instance, one potential point of falisification would be "Show that the world is NOT millions + year old". This would falsify the claim that evolution has created all of the diversity of life on Earth because without an Earth billions of years old, there is not enough time for evolution to craft all of that variety. This falsification point however does not contradict the ample evidence collected on variation, genetic drift, selective rpesure etc etc. The main body of the theory would stand, but the element falsified would need a new explanation... (maybe many species were 'seeded' on Earth by aliens..?)

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

So basically my misunderstanding is that something that is falsified IS false but being falsifiABLE makes something a valid theory since it would be able to be disproved by specific observations.

 

[MeJennifer]

When a theory is falsifiable it means that at least in principle there is a way where it could be shown to be wrong.
A theory that is not falsifiable is not a theory at all but instead a dogma or a belief.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A theory that is falsified is false; some fact has been shown to contradict it. A theory that it is possible to falsify is falsifiable; all scientific theories should be falsifiable, according to Popper's followers, but they should not actually be falsified, or why would they be useful?

It's just like the difference between being mortal and being dead. All people are mortal, but none of us is dead yet.

 

[metacristi]

We can also recognize that all arguments from ID derive from "outside science", that is, by definition ID is an argument derived from the "supernatural"...

"Although it may not require a literal reading of Genesis, [ID] is creationism because it requires that an intelligent designer started or created and intervened in a natural process," Leshner said. "ID is trying to drag science into the supernatural and redefine what science is and isn't."

Well while I agree that currently we cannot accept that ID is on a par with natural evolution I cannot agree with the hidden assumption that the methodologies used by current science cannot change in non-trivial ways.

The above quotes seems to advocate either the idea that hypothesis God is not a subject for science (as fideists, among others, say) or that such a hypothesis is never a reasonable solution for science so we can always ignore it safely (as some atheists claim; a stance basically indistinguishable, at the practical level, from metaphysical naturalism: there is no transcedental intelligent creator).

But methodological naturalism does not reject the possibility of 'supernatural' and 'supernatural science'. Naturalism is considered merely a fallible assumption of science, we have currently much more reasons to keep it as the first choice methodology in science but without rejecting (underestimating) the possibility to find later evidence for super-naturalism (of course the supernatural needs extraordinary arguments / evidence, anyway much more than what exists currently).

Methodological naturalism fully acknowledges the possibility of important revisions in the future; in other words the possibility of 'miracles', extraordinary evidence pro God, which to basically oblige us to introduce a transcedental God (and the supernatural) inside science (at least provisionally) is never underestimated.



Niall Shanks points well to this fact in his book "God, the Devil, and Darwin - A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory":


"methodological naturalism = Long experience shows that all we seem to bump into in science is nature, and so all causes and effects are, with very high probability, natural, and thus the bio-psycho-social model is most probably adequate for the phenomena under analysis. Extraordinary evidence will be needed to make a case for supernatural spiritual causes in medicine, and hence an extension of the model to the bio-psycho-social-spiritual model. The methodological naturalist is thus skeptical of claims about supernatural causes but also recognizes, since all claims in science are potentially revisable in the light of new evidence, that it is at least conceivable that all that long experience of nature has not told the whole story."


I may agree that probably we will never have a ‘proof’ (involving certitudes or quasi-certitudes) of God but I cannot agree with the conclusion that an important paradigm shift (which to make hypothesis God a provisional part of science) is never possible.

Indeed for example when people all over the world are told by a fire in the sky - pretending to be the omni-all Creator of our universe and of human race - that the usual laws of nature will be changed on Earth for 48 hours, that the Andromeda Galaxy will suddenly disappear forever or that a new race of animals will be created (and things happen exactly) then it's clear that 'God hypothesis' should become the first choice program (the 'normal paradigm' of those days, provisionally accepted) in science.

Naturalism is the first choice methodology of current science because we do not have at the moment sufficient reasons pro supernatural but not because supernatural cannot be a part of science.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." (J. Robert Oppenheimer)

 

[Rade]

...Naturalism is the first choice methodology of current science because we do not have at the moment sufficient reasons pro supernatural but not because supernatural cannot be a part of science...

You are welcome to your belief--but I hold it to be false, for if a phenomenon can be demonstrated, it can no longer be considered supernatural.