Conservapedia talk:Falsifiability Challenge
From Conservapedia
- Good concept, wording is shaky.
- Must expand examples: state what the theory is; the hypothesis which must be true if the theory is true
I think your 'evolution' example is actually an anti-YEC example:
- YEC is false, because it says
- YEC says men and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
- No one has found an example of men and dinosaurs living at the same time.
- If they did, it would disprove #2
- If #2 is false, then the anti-YEC argument loses (one of) the legs it stands on. --Ed Poor 23:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
That is not really a falsification statement for YEC because a YECist can just say that it hasn't been found yet. Negative statements dont work well for falsification...positive statements are more valid...such as "YEC is potentially true unless x were found to be true ("not YEC is false until x is found to be true). Tricky distinction, but important.--PalMDtalk 23:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
- Just want to double-check: you did invite me to make alterations to this user page, right? :-) --Ed Poor 09:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Contents |
Why this is misguided
I've tried to explain this before, but I'll repeat and expand on it here.
Ability of evidence to refute evolution
You have previously said of falsifying evidence, "This falsifying evidence must be, generally, fairly dramatic, as it will have to damage the theory down to its core". I would go further than that. Even a fairly dramatic piece of evidence is unlikely, by itself, to totally demolish a strongly-held theory, because (a) scientists are human, and won't readily give up a cherished idea, and (b) the falsifying evidence will be contrasted to a much larger body of claimed supportive evidence. In one sense, this second reason is entirely legitimate. If a scientist claims to find a piece of falsifying evidence, before it will be accepted, other scientists will have to check his work. Assuming that is done, and the falsifying evidence stands, there will still be the suspicion that the scientists replicating the results have themselves also got it wrong. Or perhaps there is an explanation for the falsifying evidence that doesn't require throwing out the entire theory.
I'll give some examples to support all that.
Human and dinosaur footprints
One of the claimed falsifying evidences in this challenge is the finding of evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together. It specifically mentions bones in the same strata, fire, and human tooth marks on the dinosaur bones. But any evidence showing that humans and dinosaurs lived together would do just as well.
It's well known that many years ago evidence was found of what appeared to be human and dinosaur footprints in the same strata in Glen Rose in Texas, even with the tracks of each overlapping. Did this falsify evolution? No, it did not, in practice at least. The evolutionists tried to explain away the evidence. One explanation was that the human footprints were forgeries. This sounded credible because forged footprints were in fact made and sold in Glen Rose during the depression. But the explanation was invalid because further footprints were discovered in situ after removing the overlying rock, in front of witnesses and recorded on film.
The next explanation was that they weren't really human. One evolutionist was reported as admitting that they looked human, but couldn't be, although he couldn't say what had formed them. There was at the time no good reason for doubting that they were human, except for the fact that it contradicted evolutionary dogma.
However, the fossil footprints subsequently (after a few years) developed discolourations that made them look more dinosaurian. So now there was a tangible reason to doubt that they were human. Creationists stopped using them as evidence, and evolutionists felt vindicated. But note that the evidence was originally totally inconsistent with the evolutionary paradigm, yet evolutionists did not consider evolution falsified. And with hindsight, perhaps with good reason. You don't throw out an entire theory like evolution on the basis of one bit of contrary evidence.
It is partly for this reason that I think most if not all possible falsifying propositions that might be put on this challenge page are futile, as they actually have little hope of falsifying evolution. Sure, they might falsify some particular detail of the evolution theory, but not evolution itself. And I've previously explained that solid evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time would not falsify evolution anyway. It would show that they didn't die out 65 million years ago, but it wouldn't show that evolution is false. I've mentioned the examples of the celeocanth and Wollemi Pine that were supposed to have died out at the time of the dinosaurs, but have been found alive. They didn't falsify evolution, and neither would evidence that dinosaurs survived longer or still exist.
"Recent" dinosaur bones
Complex organic molecules are known to be very fragile and to break down readily. I don't recall the actual figures (time spans), but basically no-one would expect to find intact biological material that has survived for 100 years, unless it was preserved in exceptional conditions (such as frozen in a glacier). And no-one would expect to find intact biological material that has survived for 100,000 years in any circumstances. Therefore, the chances of finding intact biological material from 65-million-year-old dinosaurs is zero. So a falsifiability test would be that if intact biological material was found from dinosaurs, evolution must be wrong (or at least the claim that they died out 65 million years ago must be wrong).
Yet such material has been found, more than once, in recent times. The discoverer, Mary Schweitzer, said that she couldn't believe the results until she'd done the tests 17 times! So did it falsify the idea that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago? NO, it was explained away as a remarkable example of preservation!
Again, the evolutionary idea was not falsified by "falsifying" evidence.
Magnets and wheels
As well as discussing hypothetical falsifications, we can also look at one that was actually proposed by a well-known evolutionist. From TJ (Journal of Creation):
The famous British evolutionist ... J.B.S. Haldane claimed in 1949 that evolution could never produce ‘various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect.’ Therefore such machines in organisms would, in his opinion, prove evolution false. These molecular motors [discussed in the TJ article] have indeed fulfilled one of Haldane’s criteria. Also, turtles and monarch butterflies which use magnetic sensors for navigation fulfil Haldane’s other criterion.
Haldane didn't live to see his falsification tests demonstrated, but either other scientists must have disagreed with him on the validity of those falsifications, or it demonstrates that successful tests to falsify evolution simply won't convince evolutionists.
Conclusion
With no clear evidence that falsification tests for evolution do actually have the potential to falsify evolution, it is unfair to ask creationists what could possibly falsify creation.
Ability of evidence to refute some details of a theory
The section above has been discussing the ability to falsify evolution (or creation) as a whole, as an entire theory. If we want to discuss falsifying a particular detail or aspect of a theory, that is another matter.
Sure, producing irrefutable evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together would falsify the idea that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago (or that humans weren't around 65 million years ago), but that is different to falsifying evolution itself.
And I agree that particular claims of the theory of evolution can (potentially) be falsified. But the same applies to creation. Anti-creationists argue that creation can't be falsified because it invokes God, but whilst it may be impossible to falsify creation as a whole, it is very possible to falsify particular claims of the creation model. That this is indeed possible has been demonstrated by creationists making specific claims that have been tested (and found true in some cases).
Popper and whether evolution is science
Karl Popper himself said:
Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programmeBirch and Ehrlich, wrote in Nature:
Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.In summary, this quote from Jonathan Sarfati is applicable (my emphasis):
Although evolutionists like to condemn creation as non-science, they have a hard time coming up with a definition of ‘science’ that includes evolution and excludes creation unless it's blatantly self-serving.
Philip J. Rayment 23:35, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Uncited Arguments
Can you add citations so that I can examine the scientific veracity of the various claims you've made? I ask because I'm sure they won't hold up to strict scrutiny.-AmesGyo! 22:47, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
- A citation for you. [1] --Mtur 22:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yep, that about sums up my feelings of the likelihood of success of Philip's arguments.-AmesGyo! 22:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
- Could you please specify which claims you want citations for? Philip J. Rayment 22:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Nonsense
Unless stated more clearly, the above is entirely nonsense. This page is for falsifiability statements. Make one or don't. The Evo statements are clear examples of falsifiability. I think the misunderstanding here is falsification vs falsifiability. The statements may or may not actually falsify evo, but THEY COULD.
