Evidence for God from Science

Can naturalistic, Darwinian macro-evolution be falsified?


If so, how?


-clwinche

Can naturalistic, Darwinian macro-evolution be falsified?

Imo no, because as soon as you show a contradiction they just work that into the theory with an ad hoc hypothesis. Then they usually ridicule the person who criticised the theory and claim he/she is "ignorant" .

I would also like to point out, they don't even consider common descent ( macro-evolution) a theory, it is a fact to them (and no I am not joking). They will only discuss how it happened (the mechanism which is the "theory") and the "fact" of evolution isn't even up for debate. Read the following links......

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/ ... heory.html

Also, take note that they aren't using the word "fact" as an absolute statement (scientific models don't work in absolutes) but their meaning is "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent". It is just a sad attempt at trying to make their "theory" appear stronger then it actually is imo.

I think it has been falsified.

Well, let's see, let's go to THE beginning...the Big Bang, the creation of everything from nothing, which couldn't have a natural cause. But, as that won't do for the hard headed....Cambrian explosion, which is impossible using evolution because 1) the record shows the top down approach, which is the result of intelligence (a complex system pops up, and over time there are a few modifications....ie, the car) and 2) mutation rates don't allow for that kind of diversity in such short a time (assuming there are such things as beneficial and information-adding mutations)...and, 3) mutate DNA all you want, but you'll just get a weider specimen of a species, but not a new species (chapter concerning biological information in Case for a Creator says a paragraph over that).

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I think it has been falsified.

Well, let's see, let's go to THE beginning...the Big Bang, the creation of everything from nothing, which couldn't have a natural cause.

Don't take this the wrong way, but the above argument, which I fully agree with, is irrelevant to the validity of evolution.

But, as that won't do for the hard headed....Cambrian explosion, which is impossible using evolution because 1) the record shows the top down approach, which is the result of intelligence (a complex system pops up, and over time there are a few modifications....ie, the car) and 2) mutation rates don't allow for that kind of diversity in such short a time (assuming there are such things as beneficial and information-adding mutations)...and, 3) mutate DNA all you want, but you'll just get a weider specimen of a species, but not a new species (chapter concerning biological information in Case for a Creator says a paragraph over that).

While I don't disagree with any of the main points you are making, it isn't enough to falsify macro-evolution in the eyes of evolutionists. You see, even if you falsify their mechanism (random mutation + natural selection) that doesn't refute the "fact" (it is a fact in their minds not mine) that macro-evolution happened.

Here is a little quote from the Gould essay I posted previously that I think help gets my point accross...

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."

Ahh yes the great power of evolution-the inabilty to truly falsify it. With ID, all you need to do is find one natural process to destroy it...but with refuting evolution, you have to prove that an infinite number of natural mechanisms don't work