Changes

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists.

[[Creationism|Creationists]] have argued that evolution is not a scientific theory because it is not falsifiable, and in this respect they have the support of Popper himself, as well as other evolutionists.

Although supporting evolution, [[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>

Although supporting evolution, [[Karl Popper]], leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of [[Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation of Science from Nonscience|falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience]], said:<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1976|p=168}}</ref><ref name="popper">http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>

{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.}}

{{QuoteBox|Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.}}

The clear implication being that Popper considered "the theory of natural selection" (the cornerstone of the modern theory of evolution") was either: 1) testable in "its most daring and sweeping form," but failed that test; or 2) untestable in any less "daring and sweeping form," which is the form it is in science today. In 1980 Popper responded to a further attack by a Darwinist by clarifying that he regarded "the theory of evolution" as among the "historical sciences" having "scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested ... by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions" (Popper, 1980). But again, it is clear that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim, and in fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained. Commenting on this, leading Darwinist philosopher of science, [[Michael Ruse]] acknowledged, "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even  

The clear implication being that Popper considered "the theory of natural selection" (the cornerstone of the modern theory of evolution") was either: 1) testable in "its most daring and sweeping form," but failed that test; or 2) untestable in any less "daring and sweeping form," which is the form it is in science today. In 1980 Popper responded to a further attack by a Darwinist by clarifying that he regarded "the theory of evolution" as among the "historical sciences" having "scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested ... by deriving from them testable predictions or retrodictions" (Popper, 1980). But again, it is clear that Popper had not really retracted his original 1974 claim, and in fact in the 1982 revised edition of the book, his original conclusion that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme" remained. Commenting on this, leading Darwinist philosopher of science, [[Michael Ruse]] acknowledged, "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even  

now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable." (Ruse, 1982, p.133). <ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>}}

now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable." (Ruse, 1982, p.133). <ref name="popper" />}}

Popper is not the only one to have made similar claims.  Birch and Ehrlich previously wrote in ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|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.}}

Popper is not the only one to have made similar claims.  Birch and Ehrlich previously wrote in ''Nature'':<ref>{{hnb|Birch and Ehrlich|1967|p=349}}</ref>{{QuoteBox|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.}}