Is evolution falsifiable? What would falsify evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

Evolution is falsifiable because the possibility exists that it can be proven false. It can be tested an experienced objectively... setting aside philosophical arguments about the objectivity of perception and reality.

Creationism and "god did it" are not falsifiable because they cannot be empirically tested.

"God exists exists."

"God doesn't exist."

I can't test either hypothesis scientifically.

There is always the chance that one day some scientist will do an experiment and evolution will be proven not to be theoretically sound. That chance doesn't exist with religion/god/creationism.

To answer your question "what could falsify evolution" the only answer would be Intelligent Design

With your tongue firmly in your cheek or are you serious?

yes hehe I am being devilish

Phew, I was horrified to think that we had yet another wilfully obtuse yec

To me the "falsification" of evolution is as it would be for anything else.

You (hypothetically) believe evolution is right. You're supposed to be a scientist, but you deliberately choose to publish findings that only support your theory (or at least in a way you can adapt your theory to make it acceptable).

If you find something that glaringly contradicts your theory, you either ignore it or go to great efforts to discredit it...going to lengths you don't go to in order to affirm the proof you do use.

Whey your bias affects your research, you aren't practicing science, you're practicing a "religion."

There are many scientifically proven rules and there are many items of scientifically upheld evidence that glaringly contradict the evolutionist view of history. Rather than an honest examination of this evidence and a more open-minded view if perhaps evolution is a part of the answer, but not the whole answer, I see dogmatic defense that evolution is the ONLY answer.

Such dogmatic passion is not indicative of science, but of faith.

If science could prove that God is real, would that be such a bad thing?

If science could prove that life was deliberately planted on earth by more evolved beings, would that be such a bad thing?

Only if you dogmatically believe those options can't be the truth.

Science is supposed to be about finding the truth...not affirming preconceived agendas.

Oh please do elaborate

what?

You haven't disproven it. I mean, the issue is that theistic evolution is essentially non-falsifiable, unless one can find a way to describe the god of a theistic evolutionary notion in a falsifiable manner. And well... does theistic evolution mean monotheistic evolution or polytheistic evolution? Is the god the Anselmian god of perfection, or is the god a rather silly being that just happens to be really powerful? Supernatural hypotheses are rejected often because they are impossible to really disprove, not because they're really easy. (the fact that supernatural hypotheses don't really add anything to knowledge is another reason)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj587d5ies[/youtube]

Here is what I sometime wonder. We are a small life form on an insignificant planet orbiting a yellow dwarf that is one of 400 billion stars in this galaxy in a romote location near the edge. This galaxy is one of over 100 billion galaxies and is located in a romote area of the universe. If there is a God why would he care about us?

Change topic
Time

I think change is what makes life possible. It is not a theory, anymore. Makes us human. Makes us have ideas about a creator. Makes us wonder about how evolution happened. As wesmontfan mentioned in his post, it is the Theory of Natural Selection which is "still up for grabs."

I always wondered why creationism was so fixed on being static, and equating stability with immutability. Even the earth changes with time. If I was religious, I would concentrate on the aspects of religion that would help me to change over time to become a more ethical and moral person and stop worrying whether the hand of god could be found in the Precambrian Shield.

As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, religion and science explain different, separate events. Each has a different sphere of influence.

Change makes us create interesting videos, too.

Do your own research.

It's not that I can't answer you...it's that I know trying to convince you will be as much fun as performing the Bohemian Rhapsody on my testicles with a claw hammer.

I would consider evolution false if God Almighty himself were to appear to me in all His glory and tell me so.

I consider that flatly false. Bias affects all people in all activities, and productive science is often science done by scientists who favor their theories irrationally given the background evidence. Not only that, but essentially the modern philosophy of science isn't a naive falsificationism to a great extent, because science works with bias, science works with partially falsified paradigms, and so on. I mean, the notion of a Kuhnian paradigm shift is so widespread that I've seen it referenced in neuroscience papers, and that idea is based upon the notion that people are stuck in a particular paradigm and only leave when both the weight of the evidence is against the current theory and a newer, better theory is out there.


I am not sure what rules and evidences you are referring to, I would guess that they would be the rules and evidences that creationists try to use against evolution. Not only that, but there is also no need for a more open-minded view, as evolution is the only theoretical answer at this point in time. So, the only direction for a scientist to go is to say that "evolution is the ONLY answer". Perhaps if another viable theory existed, then a more open discussion can occur, but if only one theory is credible, then all discourse is going to presume this theory and work to defend it's validity. I suppose you might refer to ID as another answer, but the issue is that ID is difficult to realistically make into a non-ad-hoc hypothesis, and additionally, even if there are problems with the evolutionary paradigm, the general view is that it is more correct than not anyway, and further research has a way of changing perspective on problems significantly. Scientists are not smarter than the scientific process's ability to generate ideas and test them.


I don't think you know what you are talking about. Dogmatic passion is often what drives scientists. Often we are served by their willingness to spend too much time researching both good and useless theories to try to defend them.


Science can never "prove that God is real". Supernatural hypotheses are nearly impossible to verify or falsify. I mean, by the time that we can know that we have found a supernatural thing, we no longer need science to confirm the matter, it is only open to falsification.


It is hard to even point to more evolved beings and show their actions through history. I mean, if science could prove that Martians made the Egyptian pyramids, that also wouldn't be terrible, but still, any attempts would likely be futile even if this were true, and there does not seem to be good reason to think that this is true. I mean, ID and creationist communities are not known for being viable research communities, and at this point they are dismissed as pseudo-science and from what I've heard, some of this is a matter of evaluating the arguments put forward. I mean, ID was labeled by a US court as not being science, same as creationism, and if the matter is clear enough for the scientific community and the US courts system, then what other authority can be appealed to? This isn't to say that the matter is just to be settled by authority, but I have no doubt that neither of us are actual scientists or philosophers of science, so the technical details are likely beyond both of us.


Science is what science does. Science is a method of inquiry. Scientists do affirm preconceived agendas, and that is going to be part of their research. This does not stand against finding the truth either. This is just how the world works, and ironically for all of this rant you put forward, all I actually see is a need to affirm a preconceived agenda. Do I think this invalidates your argument? No. But it also does not invalidate the actions of numbers of scientists either and their arguments. Perhaps you think that the scientific community has some conspiracy to suppress God though? Well, my only response to that is my fervent belief that the US Government has a conspiracy to hide Elvis away in Area 51 along with the big eyed aliens, and that people would know that if they just LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!!

Plenty of creationists today, the ones which I respect, do not. The organizations of which many of them are members of, creationist organizations that is, are:



Creation Ministries International: http://creation.com/

Creation Research Society: http://www.creationresearch.org/

and even,

Institute for Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/

Of these three, CMI is the one I prefer and go to the most.

Also, consider this. Recently people are claiming that I'm arguing against arguments that are outdated, but really the immutability of species outdated as well. If I argue against modern arguments, you probably wouldn't recognize them. And if they violate your continuing notion that we believe that life never changes, then you'll just continue to claim... oh whatever! I need to be working on my accounting assignments anyway.