As I See Evolution

The following definition of a theory comes a posting I was reading on another site. I should have lifted where it came from but thought I was going to post to that thread. Instead I offer this here.

One definition of a theory is:

“A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena”

If this definition is true of a scientific theory then:

1) It is true that evolutionary theory is “a set of statements and principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena”
2) It is not true that the theory has been “repeatedly tested”
3) And while it is true that it has been “widely accepted”
4) It is not true that it “can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

Thus, evolutionary theory fails on two points:
1) Repeatable testing
2) Predictions about natural phenomena

To which I would add that it fails because it based upon an untested (and perhaps un-testable) metaphysical assumption.

Please allow me to explain.

Evolutionary theory cannot be repeatedly tested because it is a theory of history, not science. It attempts not to tell us what could have happened, but what actually happened. To test a scientific theory one must set do a set of experiments where a significant set of variables are controlled or at least accounted for statistically. Since the planet is singular you cannot perform the necessary experiment. Yes, you could create virtual planets with virtual environments in some super large scale simulation, but no matter what you accomplished you are still left with the fact that you did not observe this, quite real, planet. And it is the history of the biological diversity of this planet which evolutionary theory claims to explain.

Yet, even if you show that this planets current biological diversity could have been the result of evolutionary processes, you have still failed to prove that it actually was the result of evolutionary theory. The central problem is not that you cannot come up with an explanation, or that the explanation makes sense, it is that you are trying to ask science to answer a question about a particular event. Yes, science can form theories about particular events, but only if the class of events to which the particular belongs has enough members to provide sufficient data for analysis. It’s like going out for ice cream. If I’ve never had ice cream and upon tasting it for the first time I decide that I hate it, what are the chances that I got a bad scoop? You or I cannot say until we have gone to a sufficient number of ice cream parlors and surveyed their ice cream (by the way, if anyone wants to do this experiment, count me in!). Failing to have a sufficiently large pool of observations leads to poor science, not reliable science. This, of course, does not disprove evolutionary theory – it only undermines it as a scientific theory. And that’s not its only failing.

Evolutionary theory also fails because it is unlikely the predictions of evolutionary theory will ever be testable. Think for a moment of the amount of time evolutionary theory requires for new species to arise. It is highly unlikely that any record of our own theories will be around when the first observable change in species occurs – thus, as a macro theory it cannot be tested for practical reasons.

Of course, one could simply say that we can test the macro theory by simply confirming a series of micro theory predictions. I predict that a certain species will develop the ability to resist a particular chemical over a given number of generations and viola, that is exactly what happens via natural selection. But just how far can the changes in a species go and is it possible for there to be macro evolution within a species to the point that they develop large scale physiological changes? To the point that the new organisms are so genetically different from their ancestors that they cannot interbreed with them? Current evolutionary theory predicts this to be so. But again, the amount of time this takes makes it practically un-testable. A scientific theory which cannot be practically tested cannot be more than a theory without a leap of faith. Those who take that leap do so, not because of the reliability of evolutionary theory, but because of a metaphysical commitment modern science has made.

We live, I believe you will all agree, within a physical universe. We can touch, smell, see, taste, and hear things. These things we generally believe to exist. And, in general, we believe that each thing we touch, smell, see, taste and hear, was caused by something which preceded it. For every phenomenon, we generally believe there is a cause. The question is: are there causes “outside” the physical universe? How you answer that question determines if you line up with modern science or early science. For modern scientist treat all phenomena as within a closed universe. And if the universe is closed then all that is within the closed universe can be explained by processes within that universe. If you were to show a modern scientist a “miracle” (here we just assume a “miracle” could happen), no matter how much evidence you present he or she is bound, as a modern scientist, to explain the “miracle” was a result of natural processes. To do so in any other way would be to admit an “open universe,” and thus not be science at all. (This, by the way, is why so many Evolutionists say Creationism and Intelligent Design are not scientific theories at all). No matter how complex, illogical, irrational, improbable, or un-testable the theory explaining the “miracle” might be, the modern scientist is bound to prefer that theory over anything which “opens” the universe.

Early science had made no such commitment. Early science, and here we are speaking of Francis Bacon and his colleagues of the fourteenth, fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, believed they were going to show just how God Himself ordered the universe. The history of the change is quite fascinating and you can read about it by reading the notes of the French and English academies of science – the change is slow but discernable. Early science thought the universe open and could continence Creationism, modern science cannot. However, modern science fails to make their metaphysical assumptions known and discounts its “enemies” unfairly.

So all in all, evolutionary theory fails not because it is unreasonable theory, but because it is a poor scientific theory. It is a poor scientific theory because it begins with an implied and untested assumption – the universe is closed. It is a poor scientific theory because it attempts to answer a question outside its applicable field – an historical rather than a scientific question. And it poor scientific theory practically because it is un-testable as a macro theory.

I can honestly say that I can predict where people will come down on this debate based upon two things: are they a believer in an open universe?; and, do they believe there is room in science for an open universe? Those who both questions affirmatively will probably be Creationists or Intelligent Design theorists, those who affirm the first but not the second will be theistic evolutionists, and those who deny both will be, what I call, material evolutionist.

Sometimes the best answer to a question is “I don’t know.”