Changes

In his seminal work, ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery,'' Karl Popper repudiated induction, and proposed the bright line of [[Falsifiable|falsifiability]] as a demarcation between science and non-science.  In order to be scientific, a theory must be testable, and the results of the testing must either corroborate the theory, or falsify it.  A proposed theory is falsifiable, if it is conceivable to conduct an experiment that would disprove the theory.  For example, Newton's law of gravity is a valid scientific theory because it is falsifiable; that is, the Law of Gravity is experimentally testable, and a measurement taken that violates Newton's law would falsify it, while a measurement that substantiates the theory would corroborate it, but importantly, would not 'prove' it.

In his seminal work, ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery,'' Karl Popper repudiated induction, and proposed the bright line of [[Falsifiable|falsifiability]] as a demarcation between science and non-science.  In order to be scientific, a theory must be testable, and the results of the testing must either corroborate the theory, or falsify it.  A proposed theory is falsifiable, if it is conceivable to conduct an experiment that would disprove the theory.  For example, Newton's law of gravity is a valid scientific theory because it is falsifiable; that is, the Law of Gravity is experimentally testable, and a measurement taken that violates Newton's law would falsify it, while a measurement that substantiates the theory would corroborate it, but importantly, would not 'prove' it.

While chemistry, Newtonian physics, and many other fields belong to science, metaphysics and pseudoscience are not scientific. Whilst it is commonly stated that Popper did not believe Evolutionary Theory to be a scientific theory, since he argued that it was tautological in 'Unended Quest' (1976), he in fact withdrew his criticism in 'Dialectica' (32:344-346), stating;

While chemistry, Newtonian physics, and many other fields belong to science, metaphysics and pseudoscience are not scientific.  

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation"

[[Karl Popper]] wrote that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: "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."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>

 

The issue of the [[Falsifiability of evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]] is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'':

{{cquote|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. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.<ref>L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349</ref>}}

=== Universal Laws ===

=== Universal Laws ===