I have only vaguely been following the whole Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate, assuming that I was on the side of evolution being taught. But it did make me wonder whether evolution can actually be proven… It seems to me that evolution is more like a null hypothesis that acts against any other creation theories but isn’t actually a theory in and of itself.
I don’t claim any specific knowledge here, just a passing interest.
be P
First, what do you mean by “theory”?
Do you mean “best guess” or do you mean “a falsifiable hypothesis”?
Second, what do you mean by “Evolution”? The paleontological record seems pretty clear to a layman like myself. The remains of animals in the geological column definitely change with time. Lower in the column, animals appear that do not appear later, and vice versa. I don’t have a huge interest in invertebrate paleontology, but apparently really good, continuous examples of change in mollusc shells exist. Vertebrate paleontology doesn’t have as many good, continuous records of change, but mammals represent just such a record, taken as a whole. People have discovered bird fossils that seem to make the same sort of sequence.
Also, the fossil record corresponds reasonably well with molecular biology: cladistics matches the fossil record in a lot of places.
So, “Evolution” as such seems pretty well supported, and also falsifiable. You could find a fossil of a mammal in rocks dating to the Silurian and you’d falsify it. Also, you could find a (morphological) mammal that doesn’t use the whole DNA/RNA method of reproduction, and you’d pretty much blow the theory of common descent.
Intelligent Design doesn’t present any opportunity for testing, as near as I can tell. Has a test for “too complex” been given that I can apply independently and come up with the same answer as Behe et al?
Does a set of examples of design exist that I can look at and try to come up with evidence to the contrary? The eye is a pretty bad example, for instance. At least 4 different eyes exist in nature: vertebrate eyes, arthopod (compound) eyes, and two kinds of mollusc eyes, one using a lens to focus, the other using a mirror to focus. Are all of these “too complex” to have arisen without interference from a designer? If so, why did the designer try 4 different types (all existant in animals today)? Why not try them out, then use the best one?
Aesthetically, Intelligent Design doesn’t do too much either. Aesthetically good theories have consequences. Does ID tell you anything about the designer(s)? Does it point to a single designer, or many? Which ones? Odin/Thor/Freya et al or Zeus/Athena/Diana/Apollo? Can we blame some things on Loki (African bedbug homosexual rape)?
What do you mean with proven?
Evolution does not need to be proven, it needs to be disproven in order to be discarded.
That is the case with any scientific theory, is it not? It explains natural phenomenae quite well and until something proves it wrong there is no reason to discard it. Intelligent Design on the other hand seems more like a matter of faith
@Roberto -
“It explains natural phenomenae quite well and until something proves it wrong there is no reason to discard it.”
I would guess the ID supporters would suggest this characterization fits their theory as well. I don’t know, maybe the two theories are orthogonal… Can you rule out Intelligent Design with the Evolution theory? I don’t think so. Nor can you rule out Evolution w/ ID.
Anyway, it is just a passing fancy with me, at least for now.
COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED. A real monkey wrench is about to hit both sides in the ID vs Evolution debate and particularly religion is in for difficult times. For a wholly new interpretation of the teachings of Christ, contained within the first ever religious claim and proof that meets all the criteria of the most rigorous, evidential, testable scientific method, is published and circulating on the web. It is titled The Final Freedoms. An intellectual, religious and political bombshell!
It is described by a single Law and moral principle, offering its own proof, one in which the reality of God confirms and responds to an act of perfect faith, by a direct intervention into the natural world, delivering a correction to human nature, including a change in natural law [biology], consciousness and human ethical perception [proof of the soul], providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition!
So while proponents of ID may have got the God part right, if this development demonstrates itself to be what it claims, and the means exist to do so, all religious teaching, tradition and understanding of ID are wholly in error, while the proponents of evolution who have rightly used that conception to beat down the credibility of religious tradition, but who have also used it to deny the potential for God, are in for a very rude shock.
However improbable, what history and theology have presumed to be impossible is now all too achievable. The implications defy imagination! No joke, no hoax and not spam.
Review copies of the manuscript, prior to paper publication, are a free pdf download from a number of sites including: http://www.energon.uklinux.net and http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com