Science and falsification

[drat16]

Hey everyone! Here is a quick little article I typed out for some folks. I decided to post it here also and I hope it can help some of you in your apologetics work. God's blessings!

Karl Popper was the first person who really advocated the idea that true science must be ‘falsifiable.’ In the today’s debate over ID we frequently hear this concept that “true science is falsifiable.”  While I have come to believe that ID theory as it stands today is certainly falsifiable, the question is- can we say the same about the current macro-evolutionary theory?

Popper’s Concept
Popper noted (correctly) that the theories of Marx and Freud could not qualify as ‘true science’ for they were not falsifiable. Popper wrote that the acceptance of either Marxism or Feud’s theory had “..the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it, thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did no want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still ‘un-analyzed’ and crying aloud for treatment”
For example, Popper noted that a Marxist would find confirming evidence of the theory everywhere but never any evidence to falsify it: if workers are paid good, it is because the capitalists are trying to bribe them in order to stop a revolt- as Marx predicted; if the wages fall, then it is because the capitalists are oppressing the workers- as Marx predicted.
In contrast to this, Popper said that real science makes risky predictions that can be falsified. The scientist must be willing to surrender these risky predictions to the most rigorous testing.

Is Evolutionary theory falsifiable?
The interesting thing is that Popper himself eventually wrote that evolutionary theory was not falsifiable. He found it to be more of a metaphysical proposal instead of ‘true science.’ .’ . Popper found natural selection to be something like a tautology and, just like Marxism, was an attempt to explain everything and therefore could really explain nothing. Just three quick examples out of a possible many that I have personally discovered:
1) Darwin admitted that the fossil record was “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory..” and that “all the most eminent paleontologists...and all our greatest geologists...have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of the species.” Darwin hoped time would improve the fossil evidence for his theory; he hoped that future discoveries would support him. However the ‘future discoveries’ have not and the apparent “immutability of the species” is still widely attested by the fossils. What do evolutionists do in light of this? Punctuated equilibrium is proposed to explain why the fossil record shows sudden appearance and then stasis instead of Darwin’s gradualism. So, we now have a theory built on a LACK of evidence rather than a theory built on evidence from fossils. Apparently, we have now learned that if evolution is really true we should not expect to find evidence of transitions in the fossil beds. (??)
2) Currently chemical evolution is having a difficult time explaining the origins of life. It does appear EXTREMELY improbable that natural processes alone are responsible for the intricate complexity in even the most simple life. However, Richard Dawkins tells us that, “An apparently miraculous theory is exactly the kind of theory we should be looking for in this particular matter of the origin of life.” He further tells us that, “evolution has equipped our brains with a subjective consciousness of risk and improbability suitable for creatures with lifetime of less than one century.”  I see, so Dawkins is encouraged that there are no sufficient explanations coming from chemical evolution....because our concern for improbability helps demonstrate that Darwinism is true?? I thought evolutionary theory was grounded on overwhelming evidence?
3) Most amusing- at a conference entitled Wistar, some of the world’s leading mathematicians met with leading evolutionarily biologists. The mathematicians had calculated that random mutation and natural selection alone could not produce the complexity of life we see now- it was simply to mathematically improbable. The Wistar mathematicians were not creationists of any kind, nor were they even supernaturalists. They simply wanted to meet with biologists to understand the issues of evolution better given the mathematical evidence that they saw. The evolutionists responded to the mathematical evidence by stating, “Somehow or other by adjusting these figures we will come out right. We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred.” Even more humorously, when one mathematician pointed out the improbability of the eye forming according to evolutionary theory,  the biologists responded that the mathematicians were looking at the situation backwards: the fact was that the eye did evolve, and so all mathematical difficulties must be only apparent. It is apparent that evolution is regarded as fact, not only in cases where there is a lack of evidence, but even when it faces evidence than can falsify it.
In short, whatever evidence one offers, the proponents of evolutionary theory seem to state that “the lack of that evidence supports our theory also.” Can’t explain the origins of life according to chemical evolution? The fact that you are concerned with improbability shows evolution is true. Have no evidence from fossil record? If evolution is right then the fossil record should look like the transitional process never actually occurred. I personally want to say to them: Where is the evidence?? I thought this was to be the position based on science! The fact that they usually respond with insults that question one’s intelligence is rather telling

What happened to Popper
After proposing that current evolutionary theory is more a philosophical position (like Marxism) than a scientific one that is based on evidence, Popper was assaulted by many evolutionary biologists. Eventually, due to serious pressure, Popper recanted and issued a statement of his recantation. However, how repentant was he? In his recantation he wrote this concerning natural selection: “...some of the greatest contemporary Darwinist themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring.” Ouch!
The bitter irony is: contemporary critics state that ID is not falsifiable (though it certainly is is). Yet Popper, the man who first proposed the concept that science must be falsifiable, believed that evolution is not falsifiable! 

[Stephen Taylor]

Hey Drat, I like your thinking.  Maybe, as an exercise, it might be of benefit to apply 'falsifiability' to the notion of God.  That is, can the notion, idea, concept, evidence, etc of God be falsified?  If so, how?  And to what purpose?  A little too easy, maybe, but  based on your article I think you'll get the point.  If the position is that God can be falsified via evidence of logical argument, then doesn't that make the concept of God a viable area of study and debate?  It's interesting how those against ID try to eliminate the notion of ID and of God as mere falacy - maybe we should treat Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, etc. as the same - if we can't falsify them, then maybe they're not relevant?

Maybe I've missed the point - or strayed too far off.  But when people mention "The God Delusion" to me, I mention "The Dawkins Delusion" - I've never seen Dawkins - I've seen images of someone purporting to be him, but I've never actually seen him or have hard empirical evidence that he exists ... so to me, on the evidence I've seen, he doesn't exist.  But of course, that might be going a little too far ....  ;-)

Enjoy your day!

[JDBLACK]

This is typical fallacious thinking.  Common ground for drat.

1 - Yes, everything in the Evolutionary Model is falsifiable.  The entire "Theory" as a whole is not subject to this because it isn't specific, it's a compilation of thousands of pieces of science.  It would be like asking if NASA is falsifiable.  You have to state what part of it you are testing, and every part of the Evolutionary Model absolutely allows for this.  No part of the theory can stand on conjecture alone.  They are all challenged thoroughly by rival scientists who would like nothing more than to prove a colleague wrong and steal his thunder.

2.  The origin of life is not part of Evolutionary Theory, never has been, so this question is moot and not appropriate to discuss in this manner.  This is also a common theistic, creationist argument tactic and is intellectually dishonest.

3.  This is just total intellectual hogwash.  No mathematical formula exists that can accurately measure such a thing as the probability of life evolving to what it is today.  There are simply too many unknown parameters and constraints to do this.  This is no more useful than the Drake equation for prediction such a thing.  It's another red herring.

If you keep yourself grounded in the actual SCIENCE when discussing science, then you will find that you have more to discuss and examine instead of these silly distractions.

[drat16]

Hey Stephen, good talking to you-

Can the concept of God be 'falsified?' I personally agree with Popper that theories emerging from the empirical sciences should probably be 'falsifiable.' However, disciplines that are not in the ‘hard sciences’ (such as philosophy, ethics, religion, art, history) are different and the ‘falsification’ theory per se is rightly not applied to them. For example, even Richard Dawkins admits he cannot absolutely disprove God's existence, but states that he finds the notion of God's existence to be EXTREMELY improbable.  He’s right (at this one point)- belief in God cannot be ‘falsified’ as it lies in a different category from the hard sciences. In short, 'falsification' is not always a good test for philosophical or religious beliefs.

Now, that doesn't mean that religious or philosophical studies are not true or cannot convey truth. Here is the myth of modernity- because philosophy, ethics, religion, art, history, etc. are not 'empirical' and 'testable' they are not as true as the hard sciences. This is a lie that is fortunately evaporating. The verification principle  is bankrupt and has been rejected by most philosophers over the last several decades. So while belief in God cannot be ‘falsified’ per se as in empirical science, it is still “a viable area of study and debate” and we rightly believe that the truth is discoverable.
God never asks us to believe in Him with ‘blind faith’ or hope against all odds, instead he has offered evidence that allows us to have a reasonably justified faith.  This evidence is different from the type that is offered in the hard sciences certainly, but we should expect it to be for it is a different category (you are studying an immaterial being and not a material, physical object like they do in the hard sciences).

Regarding Dawkins- I think believing in Dawkins' existence is reasonable and justified, even if we have not seen him personally. Here's the best way to handle Dawkins' proponents- just read Dawkins. Read everything about him, all his publications, and all the academic critiques and reviews of him. Then, you'll be informed on his arguments and will be able to point out the flaws in his reasoning. Dawkins isn't right- so simply show people why he isn't right. This isn't actually too hard to do for Dawkins is writing to a popular audience, not an academic one and he makes several telling missteps. The vast majority of peer-reviewed articles I read on Dawkins were very unfavorable to his book (even reviews by prominent atheists and scientists) and this is because he makes so many missteps and paints with such a broad, inaccurate brush. Simply find the weaknesses in his arguments and show them to people. They may get mad, but you have the right to disagree with Dawkins just as he has his right to publish his books. Message me and I can send you links to articles written by atheists and scientists that harshly critique his books if you need a place to start.
His supporters are usually surprised when they see that The God Delusion has been rejected by higher academia at large. Personally I find this to reveal that he is writing to an audience that is mostly ill-informed on the larger academic issues. Unfortunately, many times his supporters are actually more dogmatic, more angry, and more ‘fundamtentlistic’ than Christians can be! In short, get ready to be insulted if you do critique Dakwins at the popular level, but don’t be afraid to do it!! He’s wrong, and after you read him several times he isn’t that scary at all.
God’s blessings brother!

[Stephen Taylor]

Thanks for the encouragement, drat.  I've always known that RD speaks to a popular audience, since much of what he talks to is far outside his field of specialisation, so he therefore must take a line into unfamiliar territory.  If we view his populist writings as opinions, or at best populist arguments, then we can understand that he is proving nothing of any great substance.  In fact, his opinions have drifted somewhat from Gould's.  As long as we can understand that no-one is free from critique or criticism, then all is OK.  Unfortunately, there are plenty of secular people who hold RD up as an expert in all things cosmological, evolutionary, religion, etc.

Cheers

[JDBLACK]

Thanks for the encouragement, drat.  I've always known that RD speaks to a popular audience, since much of what he talks to is far outside his field of specialisation, so he therefore must take a line into unfamiliar territory.  If we view his populist writings as opinions, or at best populist arguments, then we can understand that he is proving nothing of any great substance.  In fact, his opinions have drifted somewhat from Gould's.  As long as we can understand that no-one is free from critique or criticism, then all is OK.  Unfortunately, there are plenty of secular people who hold RD up as an expert in all things cosmological, evolutionary, religion, etc.

Cheers

This is a peculiar critique of Dawkins.  I don't refute the assertion that Dawkins is not an expert on everthing, yet how can you use that as a tool to criticize his opinions/positions when the vast majority of popular Xtian apologetics attack secularism, science and atheism with an even more profound lack of academics?  Sure, there are a few "real" scientists among the legion of Xtian apologetics, but when it comes to preaching against science, Xtians seem to accept the testimony of just about anyone who stands in opposition, regardless of their credentials.  Unless, of course, they happen to be a Christian who endorses the value and validity of scientific concensus, and they just seem to ignore those guys.  From my perspective, this just looks like selectivity, like people choosing a message that they already believe in, the choir choosing the preacher, so to speak.

What drat seems to totally ignore is the fact that Dawkins is something of an icon because he expresses the innermost desire of lots of non-theists, especially in the U.S.  We've put up with religion's pushy ways for a very long time and we've gotten very tired of being told that you can't criticize religion, that it's not proper.  Dawkins rails against that using every tool at his disposal.  He is very indignant toward religion and that is something that religions just can't stand.  They demand to be taken seriously and respectfully, yet have no intention of returning the favor.  For someone to finally stand up and express our dissatisfaction with that is somewhat new and that's generally why he's so well regarded.  Not everyone agrees with every position he takes, but we do respect his willingness to say that he isn't going to give religion the respect it demands.

[drat16]

I think this 'peculiar critique' of Dawkins has legs. The criticism is that Dawkins looses credibility when he writes outside of his field. I agree because Dawkins does make numerous mistakes in The God Delusion. They are both humorous and sad at the same time. First though, let's be honest on two accounts: 1) Dawkins' books are not 'peer-reviewed' and are instead written at the popular level. Of course, publications and newspapers review them subsequent to their publication (as periodicals will do with most books) but this is at the popular level and is not what scientist mean when they brag that science is a 'peer reviewed process' (as if science was the only discipline like that). ‘Peer review’ is referring to the academic review process that academic books undergo, Dawkins’ books are written at the popular level and are not scrutinized in this way. 2) The God Delusion is a philosophy book, not a science book. Dawkins himself admits this in the chapter where he writes that we must consider evidence other than science to determine if God exists or not (as God is not an empirical being per se we must consider non-empirical evidence). So Dawkins considers the philosophical arguments for God in the book and interacts with them (that’s doing philosophy, not science) and then offers his rather philosophical argument to the source of religion (memes and so forth), etc.

Now, Dawkins is completely free to write outside of his field if he chooses and OCCASIONALLY someone does such a thing and actually does a good job. Unfortunately, Dawkins does not. I personally know of no academic philosopher who finds Dawkins really persuasive (there might be some but I have not met them or read about them). But, let’s not take my word for it. Here is a quick review of the more popular literature on the subject: The New York Times wrote, “Shirking the intellectual hard work, Dawkins prefers to move on to parodic ‘proofs’ that he has found on the internet… Dawkins’ failure to appreciate just how hard philosophical questions about religion can be makes reading it an intellectually frustrating experience.”  Michael Ruse (an atheist, VERY respected philosopher of science at FSU, and ardent opponent of ID theory) stated it best by writing, “Dawkins misunderstands the place of the proofs, but this is nothing to his treatment of the proofs themselves. This is a man truly out of his depth.” The London Telegraph stated, “So great is his loathing for religion that it sometimes overwhelms his reasoned argument.”
So, is Stephen right in criticizing Dawkins for being "a man truly out of his depth?" Apparently so, and so did most journalists and professional philosophers. He is simply agreeing with the New York Times, Dawkins is an “intellectually frustrating experience.”

Regarding Christian selectivity on who we agree with and who we disagree with- Do you agree with every atheists? Of course not, so why should Christianity be monolithic? Of course we will be selective in whom we choose to endorse.

Regarding Dawkins sticking up for "the oppressed"- My criticism of Dawkins has always been that he is incorrect in his argumentation. Now, if he wants to stand up for the irreligious folk he certainly has a right to do so, but I also have a right to criticize fuzzy philosophy when I see it. Nevertheless, I do think you reveal an interesting point here JD. Folks who are upset fuel Dawkins and this movement though unfortunately they brand themselves as the only 'reasonable' position. Yet if this were truly the ‘reasonable position’, perhaps Dawkins would be filled with less anger and be more intellectual. Hence the previous quote from the London Telegraph, “So great is his loathing for religion that it sometimes overwhelms his reasoned argument.” Dawkins simply embodies the angry minority railing against the majority, he is not a clear thinking man who makes a persuasive case. He CAN be a good writer AT TIMES and I have no doubt of his scientific abilities, but on this subject he drops the ball. Unfortunately, this subject is all he writes about any more.
I was speaking with a former faculty member at Texas A&M recently about Dawkins. This person is a fair, reasonable man who cautiously weighs every position before he is willing to comment on something. I asked what he felt of The God Delusion. He simply stated, "I waited the entire time for an argument than never came. I finished thinking, 'but where is the argument?'" I happen to agree with him. Those who disagree with Dawkins do so not because they are unreasonable, but rather because they are committed to reason and high standards of academia.

[JDBLACK]

Drat, your criticism of Dawkins just seems to have no end.  I wonder if you put any theist apologist to the same scrutiny?  You argue that he speaks outside his field.  Are you aware that many theists apologists do the same?  That he builds weak philosophy--again theists doing the same thing.  I could go on, but you get the picture.  I get that you are a theist and want to discredit Dawkins, but your position is hopelessly biased, whiich makes you...just like the rest of us.  You come across as so intellectual and superior, but you're not doing anything unique, just railing against what you disagree with.  I happen to like the fact that Dawkins disrespects religion.  I think that respect is a barrier that needs to be broken if we are ever to break religion's mind trap on the populace.

But this is digressing.  Every thread shouldn't be about the same topic (Dawkins in this case).  This thread is about science and falsification, not Dawkins.

If ID is falsifiable, the let's see some ID "scientists" produce some research.  Evolution is absolutely falsifiable; I don't care what idiotic article you've found.  You must be daft to suggest otherwise.  surely any intelligent being can see many ways in which it is.

[JDBLACK]

Hey Drat, I like your thinking.  Maybe, as an exercise, it might be of benefit to apply 'falsifiability' to the notion of God.  That is, can the notion, idea, concept, evidence, etc of God be falsified?  If so, how? 

The answer is "NO".  You can't falsifiy something you can't even observe.

It's interesting how those against ID try to eliminate the notion of ID and of God as mere falacy - maybe we should treat Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, etc. as the same - if we can't falsify them, then maybe they're not relevant?

You misunderstand completely, Stephen.  When you perceive as "against ID" is misplaced.  No one is against any idea or concept being considered or studied.  Make hay, I say.  More power to them.  But wait.  They have merely produced an idea, a speculation, and it isn't even a new one at that.  And they want to what?  Teach this stuff as Science?  No way, I say.  It's no more science than Astrology.  Do some research first, show that is is science.  Until then, no way will it enter the Science class.  But talk at the bar on a Saturday night?  Sure.

[JDBLACK]

Regarding Science and Religion, I think a distinction needs to be made.  Once can approach Science honestly and intellectually regardless of one's religious beliefs.  It's done quite often, in fact.  There are some high powered evolutionary biologists who are also practicing Christians.  However, if one rejects, without the support of evidence, articles of concensus Science, then one is at minimum practicing pseudo-science (better known as nonsense).  If the reason for this is because one's religious beliefs are threatened by Science, then one is not only guilty of pseudo-science, but also of being emotionally biased toward religion.  These last two are the bane of Science.  Believe what you want about religion, but use your brain in the lab.