The following is my continuing look at an article written Dr. John Byl of Trinity Western University in Langley, BC (Canada) intended to demonstrate that the modern scientific theory of biological evolution has been falsified in many (and in some cases important) ways. [1]
Is evolution falsified by failed predictions?
"According to philosopher Karl Popper," Dr. Byl said, "the essence of science is that its theories should be potentially falsifiable. A scientific theory should make clear predictions that can be tested." Well, the philosophy of science is a hotly debated subject but let's find out where his argument is going. Maybe I am a bit naive when it comes to this subject but, at least for the time being, I tend to agree with that position—namely, that a proper scientific theory should generate testable predictions or at least be falsifiable in principle ("potentially"). If no empirical evidence could ever falsify a theory, if there is no conceivable way that it could ever be proved wrong, then it is not scientific.
Incidentally, this is precisely why creationism disqualifies itself as scientific, the examples of which are legion. I encountered yet another one as I was paging through the fifth edition of Refuting Evolution (2012) by Jonathan Sarfati. He suggested that all organisms could possess DNA molecules with a carbon-based structure (as they do) or they could display a variety of different forms (such as a silicone-based biochemistry), and either way would look like design—maybe a single designer with an extensive toolbox, or multiple designers with alternative ideas on how to construct life. In other words, the evidence for design is whatever we find. Even a common genetic program "may or may not be the case for common design," he said. So the conclusion is design, no matter what, a conclusion safeguarded from ever being falsified by any evidence. [2]
On the other hand, Darwin's theory of evolution has made countless predictions, most of them indirectly or inadvertently but some that were very specific, and the theory has not yet been falsified. Descent with modification from a common ancestor has predicted the universality of the genetic code, the consistent distribution of fossils in the geological column, intermediate species including their general morphology and location, molecular clocks indicating evolutionary patterns of descent that correspond with biogeographical patterns, and on and on. Entire books have been written exploring the countless predictions that would follow under the assumption of evolution being true, the vast majority of which are driving fruitful scientific research in the lab and in the field.
But let's see what Dr. Byl will argue using this falsifiability heuristic principle. Referring to a personal web site belonging to an intelligent-design proponent, he claims that this Cornelius G. Hunter has listed over twenty "false predictions of evolutionary theory." [3] All right, here we go. I think he means to highlight certain things predicted by evolution that is not borne out by the evidence, testable predictions that were falsified. And, of course, once a theory has been clearly falsified it ought to be discarded. For example, if we found dinosaur and modern human fossils in the same sedimentary layer alleged to be 80 million years old, that would falsify evolution (but it would go a long way in supporting young-earth flood geology).
What about Cornelius G. Hunter's list?
Hunter, who is responsible for the list, had other ideas. Contrary to Dr. Byl, his argument is that specific hypotheses relevant to evolution have been falsified but not the theory of evolution itself. [4] "Falsified predictions are sometimes used to argue a theory is false," Hunter said, but such a "naive falsificationism is flawed and not used here." Let that sink in a little. He also went further and said that these "false predictions do not demonstrate that ... evolution is false." So you can understand my confusion over Dr. Byl's aim or intention in citing Hunter.
But then even Hunter's list itself is flawed and questionable, regardless of his intent. I only got as far as the first article which Dr. Byl had highlighted, regarding the claim that "the DNA code is not unique." This has supposedly been falsified. But the analysis Hunter provided was so manifestly flawed that I didn't bother reading any of the other articles. Let me show you what I mean.
Hunter said that the genetic code "arose so early in evolutionary history, in the first primitive cell, [that] the code must not be unique or special." Umm. What? It is difficult to make out what his point is. Honestly, how does the genetic code arising so soon in evolutionary history lead to the conclusion that it's not unique? Is there a hidden premise at work? I thought that maybe if I read further, including the material he cited, it would start to make sense.
But no, it didn't. He quoted Francis Crick who said that "there is no reason to believe ... that the present code is the best possible." That's not a claim that the code isn't unique, only that we have no reason to think it's the best possible. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But consider this: If X is not the best possible yet it's the only one of its kind, then it's unique. That's just what the word means. Crick also said that this code "could have easily reached its present form by a sequence of happy accidents." Since it is possible for unique things to arise by a sequence of happy accidents, this likewise doesn't support Hunter's straw man. Hunter also refers to Bruce Alberts, who said that "the code seems to have been selected arbitrarily." Another claim about its development, not its uniqueness. [6] Finally, he cites Mark Ridley who said that the code is "a 'frozen accident'," by which he means that "the original choice of a code was an accident; but once it had evolved, it would be strongly maintained." [7] Once again, this is about its development. There is no claim here that it isn't unique. Not a single statement to the effect that "the DNA code is not unique" or special.
In fact, all these claims seem to constitute a good argument that the genetic code is indeed unique or special—it is the universal, one-of-a-kind code found in all organisms, "from bacteria and archaea to plants, animals, and humans, the instructions that guide development and functioning are encased in the same hereditary material, the DNA [molecule]." [8]
Hunter concedes that "somehow the DNA code evolved into place but"—and here is where he veers sharply away from his referenced material—"it has little or no special or particular properties." How on earth did he draw that conclusion? The reality is quite the contrary, and I have an extensive library upon which to draw if there is any doubt regarding what evolution predicts regarding DNA. Since Hunter's logic was invalid, and it seemed he wasn't even making the point which I think Dr. Byl was aiming for at any rate, I stopped reading his list and returned to Dr. Byl's article.
Is evolution falsifiable?
Evolution certainly is falsifiable, and I have described some of the ways that could be done.
According to Dr. Byl, the theory of evolution has been so heavily modified to accommodate all the available data that it has "become much more cumbersome" with ad hoc tweaks and revisions, such that it "is no longer elegant nor simple." I have not seen that in my reading of the relevant literature and Dr. Byl has not succeeded in arguing otherwise here. The theory is contained in a simple and elegant statement, that the origin of species is best explained by descent with modification from a common ancestor. That's it, that's evolution. Not only is that how the theory is understood in the science books I have in my library but even in creationist books from Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis ministry, which defines evolution in essentially those same words. [9]
Everything else buzzing around the theory are supporting (or competing) hypotheses regarding the mechanisms by which evolution occurs (e.g., Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, the adaptationism debates, etc.), or the rate of evolutionary changes (gradualistic or punctuated), or the Lemarckian implications of epigenetics, and so on, falsifiable hypotheses that are tested and either accepted (and re-tested), modified (and re-tested), or rejected (and taken out with the trash). [10] These hypotheses are supposed to flesh out the details of the theory (if they hold up), but not a single one of them changes the theory at all. It still is, as it has been for more than 150 years, descent with modification from a common ancestor. (Think about this in slightly different terms: If a hypothesis about planet formation was wrong, would that falsify the heliocentric theory? Of course not.)
Conclusion
Contrary to Dr. Byl's conclusion that evolution has been falsified in many ways, some of which are significant, nowhere in his article did he successfully make that case:
1. If evolution is falsified by Genesis, he failed to demonstrate that exegetically.
2. And it cannot be falsified by origin-of-life problems because life evolved irrespective of how it arose.
3. What about the fact that macroevolution has never been proven or observed? First, no one can seem to agree on precisely what "kinds" represent taxonomically so it is impossible to evaluate that claim. Second, human lifespans are breathtakingly short on geological timescales, so of course it hasn't been observed. Third, theories are either fruitful or false but they are never proven.
4. Does the fact that evolution has no commercial application falsify the theory? I really don't see how. And I further dispute Dr. Byl's rhetorical strategy of redefining evolution so that it no longer includes variation in a species population (change in allelic frequencies).
5. On my view, if evolution was inherently naturalistic, then it definitely would be false—but it's not naturalistic.
6. The fact that a host of unanswered questions remain doesn't somehow falsify the theory (non-sequitur). It's just good science in progress.
7. What about the alleged failed predictions? It has not had any—yet. Various proposed hypotheses supplementing the theory have met with either success or failure, but these are not themselves the theory. As pointed out, if we invalidated a hypothesis about planet formation, that would not falsify the heliocentric theory which it served. (It's so important to understand the proper difference between hypothesis, theory, and law.)
At the end of the day, evolution is definitely falsifiable, but it has not been falsified. If young-earth creationists presented a responsible exegesis of Genesis 1 consistent with sound hermeneutic principles, taking into consideration the original language, its ancient Near Eastern cognitive and cultural context, the intent and understanding of the original human author and audience, and so forth—you know, a literal interpretation—which showed that it is describing the dawn of natural history, the physical or material origins of all things, then evolution would be soundly falsified. Or, going the scientific route, if they were to find evidence consistent with a global flood but contradicting evolution—again, simple things like the fossil remains of some canine "kind" in early-Devonian deposits, impossible given evolution but the sort of evidence that would be abundant and easy to come across given creationist flood geology—then that would effectively falsify evolution.
Until then, it's falsifiable but not yet falsified.
John M. Bauer
@JohnMBauer1
Approx. 1,800 words
Footnotes:
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[1] John Byl, "Is Evolution Unfalsified?" Bylogos (blog), August 28, 2015.
[2] Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, 5th ed. (Atlanta, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2012), 83.
[3] Cornelius G. Hunter, "Darwin's Predictions" (personal web site), c. 2015. Hunter used the free hosting services of Google, so I was prejudicially skeptical of its credibility because of my cynical disposition. To me this was tantamount to Geocities or Angelfire—although it suddenly dawns on me now that most people are probably no longer familiar with those ancient free web site services from the 1990s. Hunter's personal blog is Darwin's God.
[4] Contrary to how Hunter expressed himself, these are actually not predictions of evolution as a broad scientific theory. These are hypotheses proposed as supplemental evolutionary details, some of which may turn out to be wrong.
[5] Francis Crick, "The origin of the genetic code," Journal of Molecular Biology 38 (1968): 367-379. Citation provided by Hunter.
[6] Bruce Alberts, D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, and J. Watson, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 3rd ed. (New York: Garland Publishing, 1994), 9. Citation provided by Hunter.
[7] Mark Ridley, Evolution (Boston: Blackwell Scientific, 1993), 48. Citation provided by Hunter. My copy is a 3rd edition and has slightly different wording: "The code is then what Crick (1968) called a 'frozen accident.' That is, the original coding relationships were accidental, but once the code had evolved, it would be strongly maintained." Mark Ridley, Evolution, 3rd ed. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004), 59.
[8] Francisco J. Ayala, The Big Questions: Evolution, ed. Simon Blackburn (London, UK: Quercus, 2012), 90.
[9] Ken Ham, general editor of the three-volume New Answers Book series, likewise admits that evolution is understood in terms of all life on earth coming about "through descent with modification from a single common ancestor." See the "Glossary" in Ken Ham, ed., New Answers Book 1 (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006), pp. 355–365.
[10] See for example R. E. Michod and D. Roze, "Cooperation and Conflict in the Evolution of Multicellularity," Heredity 86, no. 1 (Jan 2001): 1–7. See also "Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink?" Nature 514 (Oct 2014): 161–164.
No comments:
Post a Comment