Changes

Some [[creation scientists]] have argued that the evolution of all life on Earth from a common annecestor is not a [[falsification|falsifiable]] hypothesis and as such should be considered a [[pseudoscience]] according to criteria proposed by the renowned philosophy of science [[Karl Popper]].  The falsifiability principle essentially states that scientific theories are testable, and theories that are not testable are not scientific.  Observations that corroborate theories not sufficient to establish status as science under Popper's falsifiability criteria.  The concept of ''[[falsifiability]]'', coined in Popper's book, ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery'', led Popper to classify evolution as a "metaphysical research programme."<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=167-180}} as quoted by {{harvnb|Number|1992|p=247}}</ref>   

Some [[creation scientists]] have argued that the evolution of all life on Earth from a common annecestor is not a [[falsification|falsifiable]] hypothesis and as such should be considered a [[pseudoscience]] according to criteria proposed by the renowned philosophy of science [[Karl Popper]].  The falsifiability principle essentially states that scientific theories are testable, and theories that are not testable are not scientific.  Observations that corroborate theories not sufficient to establish status as science under Popper's falsifiability criteria.  The concept of ''[[falsifiability]]'', coined in Popper's book, ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery'', led Popper to classify evolution as a "metaphysical research programme."<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=167-180}} as quoted by {{harvnb|Number|1992|p=247}}</ref>   

Evolutionary devotees counter, however, that evolution is falsifiable.  Most famously, the English biologist [[JBS Haldane]] argued that "fossil rabbits in the precambrian"<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref> would falsify evolution--while arguing that the [[theory of evolution]] is a scientific theory even under Popper's falsifiability criteria.   

Evolutionary devotees counter, however, that evolution is falsifiable.  Most famously, the English biologist [[JBS Haldane]] argued that "fossil rabbits in the precambrian"<ref>Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell Publishing Limited.</ref> would falsify evolution—while arguing that the [[theory of evolution]] is a scientific theory even under Popper's falsifiability criteria.   

In 1980, Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by creation-scientists by affirming that theories regarding the origins of life on earth were [[science|scientific]] because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested,"<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1980|p=611}} as cited in {{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref> but he stopped short of granting full scientific standing to evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref>  With Popper's equivocal stance on evolution not resolving the matter, Douglas Theobald argues at TalkOrigins, a pro-evolution website, cataloged 30 major biological predictions of evolution, with "potential falsifications".<ref> Theobald, Douglas (2004) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html| 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method.] The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-05-12.</ref>  

In 1980, Popper responded to news that his conclusions were being used by creation-scientists by affirming that theories regarding the origins of life on earth were [[science|scientific]] because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested,"<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1980|p=611}} as cited in {{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref> but he stopped short of granting full scientific standing to evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=247}}</ref>  With Popper's equivocal stance on evolution not resolving the matter, Douglas Theobald argues at TalkOrigins, a pro-evolution website, cataloged 30 major biological predictions of evolution, with "potential falsifications".<ref>Theobald, Douglas (2004) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method.] The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-05-12.</ref>  

<!-- Save for later while I investiage relevance:  a tactic that even creationist group Answers in Genesis suggests not be used as it displays a lack of understanding of what the word theory means in scientific discourse.<ref> Answers in Genesis website [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp| Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] Retrieved on 2007-05-12</ref><ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>.  <ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>. In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact <ref>Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24</ref> -->

<!-- Save for later while I investiage relevance:  a tactic that even creationist group Answers in Genesis suggests not be used as it displays a lack of understanding of what the word theory means in scientific discourse.<ref> Answers in Genesis website [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp| Arguments we think creationists should NOT use] Retrieved on 2007-05-12</ref><ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>.  <ref>Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262</ref>. In fact, well over 99% of trained biologists accept the evolution of life on earth as a fact and neo-darwinian evolutionary theory as the theory best able to exaplain that fact <ref>Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek(26): 23-24</ref> -->

== References ==

== References ==

== Sources ==

== Sources ==

}}

}}

[[category:evolution]]

[[Category:Evolution]]