Shattering Theories

From Uncommon Descent:


In a preceding post to that one I had asked evolutionists the following question:

I have a question for non-ID proponents only and it is very simple: Is there even one tenet of modern evolutionary theory that is universally agreed upon by the proponents of modern evolutionary theory?

I suspected that evolutionists would not be able to agree on any such tenant and sat back and waited for the responses to come in.  Responses did come in, and my suspicion was confirmed.  I reported on the conclusion of my little experiment as follows:

What I was really trying to get at was this: Is there any “core” proposition on which all proponents of modern evolutionary theory agree.  By “core” proposition, I do not mean basic facts of biology that pretty much everyone from YECs to Richard Dawkins agrees are true.  I mean a proposition upon which the theory stands or falls and [] sets it apart from other theories and accounts for its unique purported explanatory power.

I have in mind a proposition that would answer David Berlinski’s famous question:

“I disagree [with Paul R. Gross’ assertion] that Darwin’s theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.” Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”

Indeed. What does modern evolutionary theory offer in comparison? How can the theory ever hope to be as “solid as any explanation in science” when its proponents cannot seem to agree on a single tenet, the falsification of which would, in Berlinski’s words, shatter the theory?


That isn’t going to happen, as Darwinism has proven to be flexible enough to justify/explain away anything. Fundamentally, it cannot be disproved.

But then again, Darwinism is just a powerful philosophical preference shared among men who loathe the idea of God (or even a mere Higher Supernatural Intelligence).

It is not a scientific hypothesis that can actually be disproven.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s