[Quotes] [Science, #1, #2, #4]
"More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are: (1) It is guided by natural law; (2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (3) It is testable against the empirical world; (4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and (5) Its is falsifiable." (Overton W.R., "United States District Court Opinion: McLean v. Arkansas, January 5, 1982," in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy," Prometheus: Amherst NY, 1996, p.318)
[top]"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 attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." (Birch L.C. & Ehrlich P.R., "Evolutionary History and Population Biology," Nature, Vol. 214, 22 April 1967, p.352)
[top]"Such a threshold model is in accord with Mayr's notion of the `genetic revolution' occurring in small, isolated, and inbreeding populations; merely the terms are different. But all such schemes suffer from the fundamental weakness of evolutionary biology: they are extremely difficult to test and therefore remain metaphors. We do not yet know enough about the developmental biology of organisms to know whether such ideas are consistent with the way in which development actually works." (Thomson, Keith Stewart [Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University, USA], "The Meanings of Evolution," American Scientist, Vol. 70, pp.529-531, September- October 1982, p.531).
[top]"However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as "industrial melanism," we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry." (Popper, Karl R., [Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of London], "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4, 1978, pp.339-355, p.344).
[top]"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme-a possible framework for testable scientific theories." (Popper, Karl R., [Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of London], "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography," [1974], Open Court: La Salle, Ill., Revised Edition, 1982, p.168. Emphasis in original)
[ top]"Darwinian evolution, by natural selection, predicts that organisms are as they are because all their genes have been and are being subjected to selection, those that reduce the organism's success being eliminated, and those that enhance it being favoured. This is a scientific theory, for these predictions can be tested. 'Non-Darwinian' or random evolution predicts that some features of organisms are non-adaptive, having neutral or slightly negative survival value, and that the genes controlling such features are fluctuating randomly in the population, or have been fixed because at some time in the past the population went through a bottleneck, when it was greatly reduced. When these two theories are combined, as a general explanation of evolutionary change, that general theory is no longer testable. Take natural selection: no matter how many cases fail to yield to a natural selection analysis, the theory is not threatened, for it can always be said that these failures of selection theory are explained by genetic drift. And no matter how many supposed examples of genetic drift are shown to be due, after all, to natural selection, the neutral theory is not threatened, for it never pretended to explain all evolution." (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], "Evolution", British Museum (Natural History): London, 1978, p.70).
[top]"In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks. This is illustrated by other statements in the Root-Bernstein letter, such as: "Evolution postdicts certain immutable trends of progressive change that can be falsified." This is simply not the case! In the fossil record, we are faced with many sequences of change: modifications over time from A to B to C to D can be documented and a plausible Darwinian interpretation can often be made after seeing the sequence. But the predictive (or postdictive) power of theory in these cases is almost nil." (Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289).
[top]"The theory of natural selection can describe and explain phenomena with considerable precision, but it cannot make reliable predictions, except through such trivial and meaningless circular statements as, for instance: "The fitter individuals will on the average leave more offspring." (Mayr, Ernst [Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University], "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," [reprint of Mayr E., "Cause and effect in biology," [Science, Vol. 134, 1961, pp.1501-1506], Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.31-32).
[top]"I now wish to give some reasons why I regard Darwinism as metaphysical, and as a research programme. It is metaphysical because it is not testable. One might think that it is. It seems to assert that, if ever on some planet we find life which satisfies conditions (a) and (b), then (c) will come into play and bring about in time a rich variety of distinct forms. Darwinism, however, does not assert as much as this. For assume that we find life on Mars consisting of exactly three species of bacteria with a genetic outfit similar to that of three terrestrial species. Is Darwinism refuted? By no means. We shall say that these three species were the only forms among the many mutants which were sufficiently well adjusted to survive. And we shall say the same if there is only one species (or none). Thus Darwinism does not really predict the evolution of variety. It therefore cannot really explain it. At best, it can predict the evolution of variety under "favourable conditions". But it is hardly possible to describe in general terms what favourable conditions are except that, in their presence, a variety of forms will emerge." (Popper, Karl R., [Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of London], "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography," Open Court: La Salle Ill., Revised Edition, 1982, p.171).
[top]"More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are: (1) It is guided by natural law; (2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (3) It is testable against the empirical world; (4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and (5) It is falsifiable." (Overton W.R. [US District Court judge], "United States District Court Opinion: McLean v. Arkansas, January 5, 1982," in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy," Prometheus: Amherst NY, 1996, p.318).
[top]"Another thing I must point out is that you cannot prove a vague theory wrong. If the guess that you make is poorly expressed and rather vague, and the method that you use for figuring out the consequences is a little vague - you are not sure, and you say, 'I think everything's right because it's all due to so and so, and such and such do this and that more or less, and I can sort of explain how this works...', then you see that this theory is good, because it cannot be proved wrong! Also if the process of computing the consequences is indefinite, then with a little skill any experimental results can be made to look like the expected consequences." (Feynman, Richard P. [late Professor of Theoretical Physics, California Institute of Technology, and Nobel Prize for Physics, 1995], "The Character of Physical Law," [1965], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.158-159).
[top]"Another beauty - and an important weakness - of the theory of evolution by natural selection is that with a little imagination it is possible to come up with an explanation of anything. Evolutionary biologists like to spend their time making up stories about how selection has moulded the most unlikely characteristics. Sometimes they even turn out to be right." (Jones, Steve, [Professor of Genetics, University College, London], "The Language of the Genes: Biology, History and the Evolutionary Future," [1993], Flamingo: London, 1994, p.196)
[ top]"Much of the problem is that neo-Darwinism appears completely invincible to falsification by observations or by experiments, so much so that many doubt if it is a scientific theory at all. Partly, the stochastic nature of evolutionary changes must demand that there should be an unique explanation for each event, so that any difficulty raised by observations could be explained or explained away with ease, and partly, the practitioners of neo-Darwinism exhibit a great power of assimilation, incorporating any opposing viewpoint as yet another "mechanism" in the grand "synthesis". But a real synthesis should begin by identifying conflicting elements in the theory, rather than in accommodating contradictions as quickly as they arise." (Ho, Mae-Wan [Biologist, The Open University, UK] & Saunders, Peter T. [Mathematician, University of London], eds., "Beyond neo- Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution", Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 78, pp.573- 591, 1979, p.574).
[top]"Darwin's theory of evolution, therefore, passes muster as science even though it is not, strictly speaking, falsifiable. The same applies to other historical theories: the 'Big Bang' theory of cosmology is scientific so long as you can test it against observations from astronomy and physics. The theory that there was a battle of Waterloo in 1815 is scientific in so far as if can be tested against documentary evidence. It would seem that only the less ambitious theories-ones that restrict themselves to present and future events-can be strictly scientific in the sense of being falsifiable." (Leith, Brian [producer, Natural History Unit, BC, Bristol UK], "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.29.
[top]"Was it an accident that Darwin's conclusion meant just what every reader wanted it to mean? I think not. Darwin used the same ambiguity in his private letters. Darwinism, therefore, began as a theory that evolution could be explained by natural selection. It ended as a theory that evolution could be explained just as you would like it to be explained." (Darlington, Cyril D. [late Professor of Botany, Oxford University], "The Origin of Darwinism," Scientific American, Vol. 201, May 1959, p.60).
[top]"The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments. ... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything." (Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], "Testing the Theory of Natural Selection," review of Creed R., ed., "Ecological Genetics and Evolution," Blackwell: Oxford, 1971, in Nature, Vol. 236, March 24, 1972, p.181).
[top]"Speciation is an historical process and therefore hypotheses of speciation cannot be falsified by scientific experimentation. It is impossible to repeat a speciation event under controlled conditions except for some unusual modes of speciation not infrequently found in plants but very rarely in animals. Thus, indirect evidence from the fossil record, from comparative studies of morphology and development, DNA and proteins, from cytogenetics and from biogeography are used to test ideas and theories about speciation." (Knox, Bruce [Professor, School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Australia], Ladiges P. & Evans B., eds., "Biology", [1994], McGraw-Hill: Sydney, Australia, 1995, reprint, p.707).
[top]* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists.
Copyright © 1999-2004, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. This page and its
contents may be used for non-commercial purposes only.
If used on the
Internet, a link back to my home page at
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated.
Created: 28 August, 1999. Updated: : 1 July, 2003.