Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The falsifiability of the theory of evolution is a focus of the controversy between creationism and evolution. A falsifiable theory is a theory that can be shown to be incorrect. A charge levelled at evolution frequently by creationists is that evolution is not falsifiable. However, scientists counter that evolution is indeed falsifiable since many observations and tests of the validity of the theory are possible.

On the other hand, beliefs like creationism that dispute the theory of evolution are often classified as unfalsifiable.[1][2] At least in part, this is because creationism and similar philosophies are usually associated with religious positions. These sorts of beliefs cannot be tested or shown to be incorrect.[3]

Falsifiability was proposed by philosopher of science Karl Popper as a way to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, or between science and nonscience. The American justice system has employed falsifiability to decide what is and is not science, although falsifiability is not the only measure used by the judicial system.

Contents

[edit] Falsifiability

Main article: Falsifiability

A scientific statement or scientific theory is falsifiable if there is an observation or a test that could demonstrate that the statement is false.[4] Being falsifiable does not mean that a theory is actually false, only that, if the theory were false, it would be possible to demonstrate that the theory was wrong. The concept of falsifiability was introduced in 1934 by philosopher of science Karl Popper (1902-1994).[5]

Popper sometimes described falsification and falsifiability in evolutionary terms, equating falsification with a type of natural selection or "survival of the fittest" for scientific ideas.[6] Popper wrote that the empirical method does not determine the truth of a theory, and that the goal of the scientific method is "not to save the lives of untenable systems, but, on the contrary, to select the one which is by comparison the fittest, by exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival."[5][7] Popper regarded falsifiability as synonymous with refutability or testability,[4] although some discussions of falsifiability describe it as a component of testability[8] or a related concept.[9]

Falsifiability was advanced as a method for solving the demarcation problem; that is, for deciding what is and what is not science.[4] Falsifiability was proposed by Popper as a replacement for the earlier principle of verifiability espoused by the Vienna Circle of philosphers of science.[6][10] This principle stated that a theory was meaningful and scientific if it was empirically verifiable, according to the "verifiability theory of meaning".[11]

Other philosophers and scientists have disputed Popper's falsifiability criterion as being inadequate and unrealistic.[12][13][14] For example, among those who have argued that falsifiability does not really describe the way science operates, or otherwise criticized it, are Rebecca Goldstein,[15] David Papineau,[16] Theodore Schick Jr,[17] Thomas Kuhn,[10] Ernest Nagel,[18] Imre Lakatos,[19] Larry Laudan,[11][20][21] Paul R. Thagard,[22] Paul Feyerabend[23] and Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont.[24][25] Debate among some scientists and philosophers of science on the applicability of falsifiability in science continues.[26][27]

[edit] Evolution and falsifiability

[edit] Popper and falsifiability of evolution

Hasn’t Popper argued that evolution is not really respectable science, that it’s all some rather boring tautology and is not to be taken terribly seriously? – Lewis Wolpert.

Well, I think Popper himself would (a) claim that he never said it, and (b) claim that if he did say it, he didn’t mean it. – John Maynard Smith (1920-2004).[28]

The "father of falsifiability", Karl Popper, originally was skeptical that evolution was falsifiable. In 1957, Popper wrote that common descent was only a hypothesis, "not a universal law".[29] He again described his low opinion of "evolutionary laws" in 1962[30] which was the dominant opinion of the neoDarwinists[31][32] of the dozens of evolutionary laws formulated in the 19th century and subsequently discarded.[33] In 1972, Popper described his main objection to evolutionary theory; that natural selection is either a tautology, or almost a tautology, because those that survive are defined as those that are fit enough to survive.[34] Since tautologies are not falsifiable, and falsifiability is necessary for a scientific theory, Popper's classification of evolutionary theory was unclear.[9] Popper clarified this in his 1974 autobiography by writing, "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program".[35]

Popper only includes natural selection in "Darwinism", and not the other mechanisms of evolution (p. 170 of Unended Quest, K. Popper, 1974).[35][36] Also, for Popper a "metaphysical research program" is a set of assumptions and worldviews that underlie scientific research.[37][35] This is contrary to the definition of "metaphysics" used by the logical positivists opposed by Popper, who define metaphysics as a meaningless search for answers to questions that cannot be answered.[38]

Popper repeated his assertion that evolutionary theory is close to a tautology, because the evolutionary hypothesis of natural selection predicts that only the fittest will survive, but then defines the fittest as those that survive.[39][35]

Nevertheless, Popper wrote admiringly of the value of Darwin's theory.[40][41] Popper described evolution as having a "scientific character" (pages 168 and 172 of Unended Quest, K. Popper, 1974).[42]

However, opponents of evolution seized upon Popper's statements to proclaim evolution was unscientific, and assert that creationism was an equally valid metaphysical research program.[43][44][45] For example, Duane Gish, a leading creationist, wrote in a letter to Discover magazine, published in the July 1981 issue:

Stephen Jay Gould states that creationists claim creation is a scientific theory. This is a false accusation. Creationists have repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious).[46][47]

Popper responded to these creationist claims by confirming that evolutionary theories regarding the origins of life on earth were scientific because "their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."[42] However, creationists answered Popper's statements by pointing out that Popper had not classified common descent as testable. Some creationists claimed that common descent would never be testable.[48][49]

Popper recanted his views more formally in 1978,

I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation".[50][51]

However, Popper still maintained that natural selection was more of a research program, but one that was testable and therefore not a tautology.[52] In spite of Popper's change of mind, many creationists continue to quote Popper's description of evolution as a "metaphysical research program" as one of their objections to evolution.[53]

[edit] Is evolution unfalsifiable ?

Creationists have frequently alleged that evolution is unfalsifiable. Among the complaints of creationists are:

  1. Any fact can be fit in the evolutionary framework[54][55][56]
  2. All traits can be explained as either an adaptation or an exaptation (Steve Fuller).[57][58][59]
  3. Evolution is defined to occur whenever genetic distributions change and depart from a Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and since this equilibrium never exists in practice, evolution always occurs by definition (Steve Fuller)[57][58][59]
  4. Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest", is a tautology, i.e., something that is true by definition, a truism.[60][61][35]
  5. Darwinism is effectively unfalsifiable, since one would have to show that every conceivable biological pathway could not have lead to a biological structure (William Dembski).[8]
  6. Instead of falsification, evolution supporters argue that an evolutionary process must have created every observed structure, but that science is ignorant of the details of this process (William Dembski).[8]
  7. "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme." (Karl Popper)[35][62][63][53]
  8. To falsify the claim that “Some unintelligent process (involving natural selection and random mutation) could produce this system”, "one would have to show the system could not have been formed by any of a potentially infinite number of possible unintelligent processes, which is effectively impossible to do." (Michael Behe)[64]
  9. One must show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to a given biological structure, which is impossible.[8]
  10. Evolutionary scientists retreat into "historical contingency" by claiming that there is no guarantee that one can reconstruct the pathways that occured in the past.[8]
  11. When Michael Behe suggested that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex, "Darwinists" felt they could find a Darwinian pathway although one was not known.[8]
  12. Evolution is a historical science, and is unrepeatable and therefore untestable.[56][65]
  13. Evolution is too slow to observe, so it is untestable.[66]

Creationists commonly use quote mining to bolster their case that evolution is not falsifiable. For example, a commonly used misleading and selective quote[67][68] which is used to suggest evolution is unfalsifiable is taken from a publication of Paul Ehrlich and L. C. Birch:

Our theory of evolution ... cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it. Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems have obtained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.[69]

[edit] Evolution falsifiability tests

The most famous example of a falsifiability test of evolution concerns finding fossil remains of a rabbit tens of millions of years old. For example, Richard Dawkins, biologist and professor at Oxford University, explained that "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."[70] Similarly, the evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era"[71], a period more than 540 million years ago, when life on Earth consisted largely of bacteria, algae, and plankton.

There are many other potential tests of evolution.[72] For example:

  1. existence of inefficient species in the presence of better adapted species.[73]
  2. the existence of a complex organ that could not be formed by successive minor modifications (Charles Darwin)[74]
  3. a structure which had been formed to satisfy human aesthetic senses, or for variety[74]
  4. a structure in one species created exclusively for the good of another species[74]
  5. sudden appearance of species[74]
  6. a perfect geologic record, with no gaps or missing transitions[74]
  7. change of organisms that violate laws of genetics, ontogeny, and molecular biology[73]
  8. new species emerging without ancestral species[73]
  9. a fossil of a Tyrannosaurus rex with a human head in its jaws (Peter Ward)[75]
  10. A fossil of a monkey in the Ordovician.[75]
  11. a fossil record that is temporally homogeneous [55]
  12. chimeras[55]
  13. something that blocks mutations from aggregating[55]
  14. direct observation of an organism's creation[55]
  15. A human fossil 10 million years older than any vertebrate fossil (Lewis Wolpert)[57][58]
  16. The existence of an animal that functions on different principles, not having DNA or proteins (Lewis Wolpert).[57][58][59]
  17. The existence of a fish with fingers that it uses to catch other fish (Lewis Wolpert).[57][58]
  18. Native land mammals on oceanic islands (H. Allen Orr)[76]
  19. Finding a hominid fossil in the Precambrian (Jerry Coyne)[2]
  20. finding the remains of a car in Cambrian sediments.[77]
  21. hominid fossils found in the same geological strata as trilobites (Michael Shermer)[78][79]
  22. a constant or static fossil record[80]
  23. The existence of non-DNA-based life falsifies common descent.[80]
  24. sudden appearance of a new species[80]
  25. Perfect copying of DNA from one generation to the next[80]
  26. Variation created by something besides errors in replication or environmental mitogens[80]
  27. Finding fossils in places that were unexpected or could not be explained.[80]
  28. Finding that acquired traits in any species can be inherited falsifies natural selection's role as the main evolutionary mechanism.[80]
  29. All organisms have the same number of offspring[81]
  30. There is no difference between the organisms that survive and those that do not.[81]
  31. Discovery of modern human fossils dating back to 65 million years ago.[81]
  32. no continuity in genes[8]
  33. Nonexistence of a splice in a human chromosome (Kenneth Miller)[82]
  34. irreducible complexity[80]
  35. lack of invasive species[83]
  36. the mean characteristics of a population under selection pressure do not change in the predicted way (Massimo Pigliucci)[51]
  37. the "Meister Prints" of human bootprints together with trilobite fossils are genuine and created at the same time[84][85]
  38. structure of phylogenetic trees[72]
  39. edge of evolution December 2007 (UTC)
  • Discovery of a naturally-occuring true chimera, made from widely differing lineages, which could not have been created by lateral gene transfer (like a hippogriff or sphinx).[citation needed]
  • Incontrovertible evidence that the earth is too young to have allowed evolution to occur (e.g. thousands or millions of years old, rather than billions).[citation needed]
  • Discovery that genetic information could not be passed down from generation to generation.[citation needed]
  • Discovery that a subset of organisms within a clade (for example, a group of vertebrates) have a genetic code that is entirely different from the one currently observed to be universal.[citation needed]
  • Discovery that many places on earth, widely separated from one another, have a nearly identical flora and fauna, without evidence of immigration.[citation needed]

[edit] Falsifiability in biology

Popper remains one of the few philosophers of science that have actually influenced scientists, including biologists. Falsifiability and Popper's other philosophical ideas have been used in disputes inside science and about science.[9] Popper even proposed some falsifiable "improvements" to the theory of evolution to test, but they were ignored for the most part.[9] There is not agreement about the usefulness of falsifiability in biology.[86][87][88][89][90][9]

William Saletan of Slate magazine argues that the feature that makes evolution falsifiable is the goal of explaining the processes of evolution. If one process fails, another theory must be created and tested.[91] The process of modifying and replacing outdated theories of evolution is prima facie evidence that the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable.[12]

[edit] Falsifiability, the law and the creation-evolution controversy

Falsifiability was one of the criteria used by Judge William Overton to determine that "creation science" was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools. In McLean v. Arkansas, Overton ruled on Act 590 "The Arkansas Balanced Treatment Act," which was a law requiring the teaching of creation science in classrooms. This statute provided for the equal treatment of creation science and the theory of evolution in science classrooms.[92][93][94]

When Judge Overton struck down the Act in 1982, he decided that "creation science" was not science, using the following critera:

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:

  1. It is guided by natural law;
  2. It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
  3. It is testable against the empirical world;
  4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
  5. It is falsifiable.[95]

Overton's ruling was criticized by philosopher Larry Laudan, who disagreed with philosopher Michael Ruse about the value of this Overton decision.[20][21]

Falsifiability was also further enshrined in United States law as part of the Daubert Standard created by the United States Supreme Court in 1993 as a criteria for deciding which scientific evidence is admissible in a jury trial,[96] replacing the older Frye Standard which was established in 1923. For scientific evidence to be admissible, it has to has to satisfy the "reliability prong," that is, it has to be scientifically valid.[97]

The Supreme Court explained that in order for expert testimony to be considered reliable, the expert must have derived his or her conclusions using the scientific method.[98] The Court offered "general observations" of whether proffered evidence was based on the scientific method, although the list was not intended to be used as an exacting checklist:[99]

  1. Empirical testing: the theory or technique must be falsifiable, refutable, and testable.
  2. Subjected to peer review and publication.
  3. Known or potential error rate.
  4. Standards controlling the technique's operations.
  5. The theory and technique is generally accepted by a relevant scientific community.[100][101]

Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the dissenting opinion when the Daubert decision was adopted, admitting that he did not understand falsifiability, and suggesting that other judges would have trouble as well.[102][99] Some legal scholars have criticized the Daubert Standard as misrepresenting the scientific enterprise, and unfairly rejecting scientific experts.[98]

The Daubert Standard was quoted extensively in an amicus curiae brief filed by several pro-evolution groups in the Selman v. Cobb County School District court case.[103] This led to a decision against evolution textbook disclaimer stickers, issued January 13, 2005.[104][105]

The Daubert Standard was also part of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial associated with intelligent design creationism.[106][107] It was part of the discussion about admission of the testimony of expert witnesses,[108] and some claimed it did not form part of the decision.[109] However, Charles Kitcher noted that Judge John E. Jones' Kitzmiller decision drew on the three applicable Daubert factors, without mentioning Daubert explicitly:[110] "ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research."[111]

Kitcher argued that since intelligent design is "untestable, unsupported in the peer review literature, and rejected by the scientific community, it is insufficiently reliable under Daubert." Kitcher also advocates creating a new standard for admitting scientific evidence that includes the Daubert Standard.[110][112]

Several associated with the Discovery Institute, the main promoter of intelligent design, wrote a book criticizing Judge Jones for misapplying the Daubert Standard in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, after Jones issued a decision which was not favorable to intelligent design.[113][114] One of the authors, Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute, wrote some polemics attacking Jones, including at least one using quote mined text from the amicus curiae brief signed by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould submitted in the original Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Supreme Court case that produced the Daubert Standards.[115][116][117]

[edit] Creationism and falsifiability

It is sometimes claimed that creationism, creation science, intelligent design and related ideas are not falsifiable.[1][2][80][118][112] Philosopher Robert Pennock noted in his expert report for the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial that intelligent design is untestable:

A god that is all-powerful and whose will is inscrutable can be called upon to “explain” any event in any situation, and this is one reason for science’s methodological prohibition against such appeals. Leaving the designer unnamed and undescribed has the same effect. Given this feature, supernatural hypotheses remain immune from disconfirmation or meaningful testing.[119]

Karl Popper wrote that creationism "was worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached" (p. 172 of Unended Quest, K. Popper, 1974).[35]

One of the main components of intelligent design, Lehigh University biochemist Michael J. Behe's theory of irreducible complexity, has been described as unfalsifiable.[91][80] For example, Anne Marie Lofaso, Adjunct Associate Professor at American University's Washington College of Law, writes "ID is not falsifiable, in part because it is subject to ad hoc explanations. Indeed, ID’s poster child for irreducibly complex systems, the bacterial flagellum, does not show that ID is falsifiable." Lofasa argues that any of Behe's tests for irreducible complexity could be foiled by the actions of an omnipotent intelligent agent.[80]

Philosopher Neil Tennant suggests that the tenets of intelligent design have been fashioned to avoid scientific scrutiny, often the downfall of previous creationist theories. However, this lack of scrutiny comes at the cost of being unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific according to Tennant, altough its proponents claim otherwise:

They have pared their theory down to the point where it cannot actually be brought into confrontation with any observable facts. It therefore cannot be dismissed as a sub-optimal explanation of what can be observed—because it does not really explain (or predict) anything. Heady with that triumph in avoiding direct refutation, they continue to claim scientific status for ID-theory... [119]

The Kansas Board of Education approved new science standards on November 8, 2005. These new standards defined science to be falsifiable as well as including supernatural causes for natural phenomena,[80][120][121][122] which are incompatible requirements according to Lofaso.[80]

In addition, Lofaso asserts that intelligent design is a tautology, and therefore unfalsifiable:

Along these lines, the design inference is tautological, because it assumes what it tries to prove – observable design must have a designer. Accordingly, the tautology actually has no explanatory power, in the sense that it cannot predict outcomes.[80]

Philosopher Larry Laudan maintains that not only is creationism falsifiable, but that it has been falsified repeatedly.[11][20][21] Philosopher Neil Tennant described Laudan's views as naive, since it is impossible to falsify creationist ideas by empirical means, given their religious purpose.[119] Laudan counters that there is no easy demarcation principle that is possible for distinguishing science from nonscience, and in particular creationism from science. Creationism can meet standards of falsifiability and revisability and many other requirements easily.[11][20][21]

It is also frequently stated that the available evidence does not support creationist ideas, so they appear to be false.[20][21] It has been pointed out that it is contradictory to say that these beliefs are unfalsifiable, and false at the same time.[64][56] Evolution supporters note that the same inconsistent complaints are made by creationists of evolution.[55] However, X noted that the difference is that science abandons ideas that are falsified, while creationism does not.

Many of the leading figures of young earth creationism, creation science and other types of traditional creationism have stated clearly that creationism is untestable. For example, creation scientists Duane Gish and Henry M. Morris of the Institute of Creation Research have published statements that amount to declarations that creationism is unfalsifiable. [123][124][47][125] Loma Linda University Geoscience Research Institute members Ariel Roth and Harold Coffin testified that creation science is not testable as expert witnesses for the defense in the McLean v. Arkansas trial.[126] By contrast, several of the most prominent neocreationists, Michael Behe, William Dembski and Stephen C. Meyer argue that intelligent design, another form of creationism, is falsifiable and therefore scientific.[8][64][56][66]

One of the main complaints raised against traditional creationists is that they will not give up their beliefs, even after they have been falsified.[20][citation needed] This is a characteristic they share with some of the neocreationists. For example, Dembski states that even if Darwinian explanations are found for the gaps in our knowledge that intelligent design is supposed to fill, this won't disprove intelligent design.[8] Meyer similarly reports that "Indeed, many biologists who favor design now make their case for it on the basis of its ability to explain the same evidences that descent can as well as some that descent allegedly cannot (such as the presence of sequentially encoded information in DNA)."[56]

Meyer also argues that evolution and intelligent design are "methodologically equivalent", in the sense that if one is falsifiable, they both are, and if one is unfalsifiable, they both are. Meyer states that if intelligent design is labelled a "quasi-scientific historical speculation with strong metaphysical overtones", the same label must be applied to evolution.[56]

Meyer tries to answer the complaint that the acceptance of intelligent design will stultify scientific inquiry by answering easily all unanswered questions.[citation needed] Meyer remarks that evolution already fulfills this role, which is one of the main reasons creationists claim evolution is unfalsifiable.[55][54] Meyer responds to the complaint by stating that intelligent design is only appropriately of use in historical contexts, when "theologically plausible", and when natural causes or other possible action have not yet been successful in producing an explanation.[56]

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b Ten Things to Remember about Evolution & Creationism, Kelly Graves, Issue 154, Darwin and the Evangelicals, Humanist Perspective, Autumn 2005.
    •Evolution as Fact and Theory, Stephen Jay Gould, Discover 2 (May 1981): 34-37; reprinted in [Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes], Stephen Jay Gould, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-262, ISBN 0393311031
    •"By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.", from Evolution? The Fossils Say No!, Duane Gish, Creation-Life Publishers, 1973, ISBN 0890510466
    •"Behe's theory of biochemical complexity is not scientific because it is untestable: there is no observation or experiment that could conceivably refute it. His theory is a hybrid, maintaining that some biochemical pathways evolved while others were assembled by an unidentified Great Designer. What cannot be explained by Darwinism must therefore fall to intelligent design. Such an idea cannot be falsified because each time a biochemical pathway receives an evolutionary explanation, Behe can simply narrow the Designer's domain to include the pathways not yet explained. " from More Crank Science, Jerry A. Coyne, Boston Review, February/ March 1997.
    •“Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.”, page 25 of (Science and creationism: a view from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1999.
  2. ^ a b c "If one accepts Behe’s idea that both evolution and creation can operate together, and that the Designer’s goals are unfathomable, then one confronts an airtight theory that can’t be proved wrong. I can imagine evidence that would falsify evolution (a hominid fossil in the Precambrian would do nicely), but none that could falsify Behe’s composite theory. Even if, after immense effort, we are able to understand the evolution of a complex biochemical pathway, Behe could simply claim that evidence for design resides in the other unexplained pathways. Because we will never explain everything, there will always be evidence for design. This regressive ad hoc creationism may seem clever, but it is certainly not science", from God in the details, Jerry A. Coyne, Nature, 383, 227-228, September 19, 1996
  3. ^ Naturalism: Is it Necessary?, John S. Wilkins, Chapter 7 of Evolution and Philosophy: An Introduction, John. S. Wilkins, 1997, TalkOrigins website.
  4. ^ a b c Science as Falsification, Karl Popper, an excerpt of Conjectures and Refutations, Karl Popper, Routledge and Keagan Paul, London, 1963, pp. 33-39; from Theodore Schick, ed., Readings in the Philosophy of Science: From Positivism to Postmodernism, Theodore Schick (editor), Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 9-13.
  5. ^ a b The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper, Hutchinson and Co., London, 1959 (published in 1934 as Logik der Forschung)
  6. ^ a b Popper and Kuhn on the Evolution of Science, Pat Duffy Hutcheon, Brock Review, Vol. 4, No. 1/2, p.28-37, 1995.
  7. ^ "Our knowledge consists, at every moment, of those hypotheses which have shown their (comparative) fitness by surviving so far in the struggle for existence; ... [the idea of] a competitive struggle which eliminates those hypotheses which are unfit ... can be applied to animal knowledge, pre-scientific knowledge, and to scientific knowledge" is from page 261 of Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Karl Popper, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972, Revised 1979.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN TESTABLE? A RESPONSE TO EUGENIE SCOTT, William Dembski, paragraphs 8-9, Christian Apologetics Related to Science, American Scientific Affiliation website, January 25, 2001.
  9. ^ a b c d e The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper, David L. Hull, Biology and Philosophy 14: 481–504, 1999.© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  10. ^ a b Discovering Karl Popper, Peter Singer, The New York Review of Books, vol. 21, no. 7, May 2, 1974.
    •Power of Positive Popperism, Robert Solo, Reply by Peter Singer, In response to Discovering Karl Popper (May 2, 1974), The New York Review of Books, Volume 21, Number 13, August 8, 1974.
    •“...a careful look at the scientific enterprise suggests that it is normal science, in which Sir Karl's sort of testing does not occur, rather than extraordinary science which most nearly distinguishes science from other enterprises. If a demarcation criterion exists (we must not, I think, seek a sharp or decisive one), it may lie just in that part of science which Sir Karl ignores.” from page 6 of Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?, Thomas S. Kuhn, pages 1-24 of Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, Contributor T S Kuhn, Cambridge University Press, 1970, ISBN 0521096235
  11. ^ a b c d The Demise of the Demarcation Problem, Larry Laudan, pages 111-127 of Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in honor of Adolf Grünbaum, edited by Robert S. Cohen, and Wesley C. Salmon, Nicholas Rescher, Carl G. Hempel, Robert Sonné Cohen and Larry Laudan (editing committee), Volume 76 of Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Robert S. Cohen and Marx W. Wartofsky (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1983, ISBN 9027715335
  12. ^ a b Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean?, John S. Wilkins, Chapter 2 of Evolution and Philosophy: An Introduction, John S. Wilkins, 1997, TalkOrigins website
  13. ^ A Skeptical Look at Karl Popper, Martin Gardner, Skeptical Inquirer, 25(4):13-14, 72, 2001.
  14. ^ Falsificationism Falsified, Sven Ove Hansson, Foundations of Science, Springer Netherlands, ISSN 1233-1821 (Print) 1572-8471 (Online), Volume 11, Number 3, September 25, 2006, DOI 10.1007/s10699-004-5922-1, Pages 275-286
  15. ^ Falsifiability, Rebecca Goldstein, page 9 of The Edge Annual Question — 2008, Edge Foundation
  16. ^ "He [Karl Popper] refused to revise his falsificationism, and so condemned himself to a lifetime in the service of a bad idea", from The Proof Is in the Disproof, David Papineau, New York Times, November 12, 2000
  17. ^ The End of Science?, Theodore Schick Jr, Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 1997
  18. ^ "Popper's conception of the role of falsification ... is an oversimplification that is close to being a caricature of scientific procedures" from Teleology Revisited and Other Essays in the Philosophy and History of Science, Ernest Nagel, Columbia University Press, 1979, ISBN 0231045042
  19. ^ Science as Successful Prediction, Imre Lakatos, excerpt from Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 91-195; from Theodore Schick, Jr., ed., Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 20-23.
    •Is Falsifiability the Touchstone of Scientific Rationality? Karl Popper vs. Inductivisim, Adolf Grünbaum, pages 213-252 of Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science Volume XXXIX, Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos, Imre Lakatos, Robert Sonné Cohen, Paul K. Feyerabend, Marx W. Wartofsky, Contributor Robert Sonné Cohen, Paul K Feyerabend, Marx W Wartofsky, Springer, 1976, ISBN 9027706549
    •Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Imre Lakatos, chapter 34, pages 290-366 of Karl Popper: Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers, Anthony O'Hear, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 0415180414
  20. ^ a b c d e f Science at the Bar—Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan, 1996, pages 351-355 of But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, Michael Ruse, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 1996, ISBN 1573920878
  21. ^ a b c d e More on Creationism, Larry Laudan, pages 227-230 of Beyond Positivism and Relativism, Larry Laudan, Westview Press, 1996, ISBN 0813324696
  22. ^ Why Astrology Is A Pseudoscience, Paul R. Thagard, In Philosophy of Science Association 1978 Volume 1, edited by P.D. Asquith and I. Hacking (East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 1978).
  23. ^ "Practiced with determination and without subterfuge, the doctrine of falsifiability would wipe out science as we know it" from page 90, chapter Eight of Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend, Paul Feyerabend, University of Chicago Press, 1995, ISBN 0226245314
  24. ^ Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science , Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, Picador, New York, 1998, ISBN 0-312-20407-8
  25. ^ Science-envy: Sokal, science and the police, Bruce Robbins, Commentaries, Radical Philosophy, March/April 1998.
  26. ^ Discussions of conflicting ideas about science among Karl Popper, Thomas Samuel Kuhn, and their disciples are found in Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?, Michael Ruse, Harvard University Press, April 30, 1999, ISBN 0674005430
  27. ^ Falsifiability, pages 38-83 of Popper's Theory of Science: An Apologia, Carlos E. García, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006, ISBN 0826490263
  28. ^ page 135 of A Passion for Science: Renowned Scientists Offer Vivid Personal Portraits of their Lives in Science, L. Wolpert and A. Richards, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1988, as quoted in The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper, David L. Hull, Biology and Philosophy 14: 481–504, 1999.© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  29. ^ [The Poverty of Historicism], Karl Popper, 1957, pp. 106–107
  30. ^ [Conjectures and Refutations], [[Karl Popper, 1962, p. 340
  31. ^ Simpson, 1964
  32. ^ Mayr, 1963
  33. ^ Rensch, 1971
  34. ^ "Quite apart from evolutionary philosophies, the trouble about evolutionary theory is its tautological, or almost tautological, character: the difficulty is that Darwinism and natural selection, though extremely important, explain evolution by ‘the survival of the fittest’ (a term due to Herbert Spencer). Yet there does not seem to be much difference, if any, between the assertion ‘those that survive are the fittest’ and the tautology ‘those that survive are those that survive’. For we have, I am afraid, no other criterion of fitness than actual survival, so that we conclude from the fact that some organisms have survived that they were the fittest, or those best adapted to the conditions of life." from pages 241-242 of Popper, 1972
  35. ^ a b c d e f g Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography, Karl Raimund Popper, Open Court Publishing Company, LaSalle, Illinois, December 1982, ISBN 0875483437, originally published by Fontana/William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd, Glasgow in 1974, and in a previous version as Autobiography of Karl Popper in The Library of Living Philosophers, Paul Arthur Schlipp (editor), Open Court Publishing Company, Illinois, 1974.
  36. ^ Quote #4.17: The theory of evolution is not scientific, John S. Wilkins, David Wilson and John Harshman, The Quote Mine Project Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines: Assorted Quotes, by the talk.origins newsgroup Copyright © 2004-2006, Quote Mine Project edited by John Pieret, Last update: October 31, 2006, TalkOrigins website
  37. ^ Popper describes "metaphysical realism" as an example of a metaphysical research program in section 33 of his autobiography, Unended Quest (K. Popper, 1974). He says that metaphysical realism is "the view that there is a physical world to be discovered" (p. 151 of Unended Quest, K. Popper, 1974), and is "a faith ... without which practical action is hardly conceivable" (p.150 of Unended Quest, K. Popper, 1974).
  38. ^ Nanotechnology Challenges: Implications for Philosophy, Ethics And Society, Joachim Schummer , Davis Baird, World Scientific, 2006, ISBN 9812567291, page 288.
  39. ^ "To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment is, in fact, almost tautological. Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival: there is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this" (p. 171 of Unended Quest, K. Popper, 1974).
  40. ^ "And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that." (p. 171-172 of Unended Quest, K. Popper, 1974).
  41. ^ Claim CA211.1: Popper on natural selection's testability, Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2005, TalkOrigins website, created 2005-11-2
  42. ^ a b "...some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science."
    "This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character: their hypotheses can in many cases be tested.", from Letter on Evolution (A reply to Halstead), Karl Popper, New Scientist, 87 (1215), page 611, 21 August 1980
  43. ^ The Hierarchy of Conceptual Levels For Scientific Thought And Research, Robert E. Kofahl, CRS Quarterly, Volume 26, Number 1, June 1989 (abstract)
  44. ^ page 247 of Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, Ronald L. Numbers, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992, ISBN 0-679-40104-0
  45. ^ This was described by one sociologist as "Popper-chopping", from page 247 of Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, Ronald L. Numbers, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1992, ISBN 0-679-40104-0.
  46. ^ McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education: Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton, William R. Overton, January 5, 1982
  47. ^ a b Where Is the Science in Creation Science?, Roger Lewin, Science, Volume 215, Number 4529, pages 142-144, January 8, 1982, DOI 10.1126 / science.215.4529.142
  48. ^ Popper on Darwinism, Robert E. Kofahl, Hans Zeisel, Science, New Series, Vol. 212, No. 4497 (May 22, 1981), p. 873
  49. ^ Keeping Up, Newsletter of the American Scientific Affiliation - Canadian Scientific & Christian Affiliation, Volume 23 Number 5 October/November 1981
  50. ^ Natural selection and the emergence of mind, Karl Popper, Dialectica 32(3/4): 339—355, 1978 (excerpt).
  51. ^ a b Did Popper refute evolution?, Massimo Pigliucci, Skeptical Inquirer, Sept-Oct 2004.
  52. ^ "The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable but it turns out to be not universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all phenomena of evolution are explained by natural selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a challenging research programme to show how far natural selection can possibly be held responsible for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioural programme" (Natural selection and the emergence of mind, K. Popper, Dialectica 32: 339-355, 1978).
  53. ^ a b “Logical Illiterates and Scientific Simpletons”, Bert Thompson, Reason & Revelation, June 1985, 5[6]:21-24. Revised 2001.
    •Interesting Quotations from Scientists on Evolutionism, Steve and Vickie Hall, Abounding Joy! website
    •Karl Popper's Challenge, Russell Kranz, Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly Journal, Vol II, No. 4 , p. 20-23
  54. ^ a b Scientific Creationism, Henry M. Morris, 1974 Master Books, Arkansas, pp. 6-7
  55. ^ a b c d e f g Claim CA211: Evolution Falsifiable, Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2006, TalkOrigins website, created 2003-4-20, modified 2004-3-3
  56. ^ a b c d e f g The Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent: Can There be a Scientific `Theory of Creation'?, Stephen C. Meyer in "The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer," J. P. Moreland, ed., InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, pp.67-112, 1994, ISBN 0830816984
  57. ^ a b c d e Debate on Evolution and Intelligent Design: Streaming audio recording of the debate, Steve Fuller and Lewis Wolpert, Department of Psychology and School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, February 21, 2007.
  58. ^ a b c d e Transcript of the debate between Professor Steve Fuller and Professor Lewis Wolpert at Royal Holloway College, Steve Fuller and Lewis Wolpert, Department of Psychology and School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, February 21, 2007, transcribed by BCSE members, from British Centre for Science Education website
  59. ^ a b c Wolper and Fuller Debate ID at University of London, Steve Fuller and Lewis Wolpert, Department of Psychology and School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, February 21, 2007, transcribed by Richard Buggs, Truth in Science, Truth in Science website, February 22, 2007
  60. ^ Summary of scientific evidence for creation, Duane T. Gish, R. B. Bliss and W. R. Bird, Impact 95-96 (May/Jun.), 1981
  61. ^ Scientific Creationism, Henry M. Morris, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. viii., 1985
  62. ^ Karl Popper: Critical Assessments of Leading Philosophers, Anthony O'Hear, p. 451, Routledge, 2004.
  63. ^ Popper and Evolution, Stephen G. Brush, NCSE Reports Winter 1993/Spring 1994, vols. 13:4/14:1, p. 29.
  64. ^ a b c Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to Critics, Michael J. Behe, July 31, 2000.
  65. ^ Gish Responds to Critique, Duane Gish, Skeptics Forum, Skeptic Magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997, pages 37-41
  66. ^ a b The Use and Abuse of Philosophy of Science: A Response to Moreland, Stephen C. Meyer, Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith: The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, 46, no. 1, p. 19-21, March 1994
  67. ^ The Right Frame of Mind: Rebuking the 'Clergy Letter Project, Mark Creech, Agape Press, February 24, 2006.
  68. ^ Quote #4.20 Evolution is not scientific, The Quote Mine Project Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines: Assorted Quotes, Part 2, by the talk.origins newsgroup, Quote Mine Project edited by John Pieret, Copyright © 2003-2006, Last update: October 31, 2006, TalkOrigins website, 2006
  69. ^ Evolutionary History and Population Biology, Paul Ehrlich and L. C. Birch, Nature, 214, p349 - 352, 22 April 1967
  70. ^ The Evolution Wars, Claudia Wallis, Time Magazine, 15 August 2005, page 32. Also see Dawkins, Richard (1995). River Out of Eden. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-06990-8.  and Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.. ISBN 0-393-31570-3. 
  71. ^ Evolution, Third Edition, Mark Ridley, Blackwell Science, 2003
  72. ^ a b Can the theory of evolution be falsified?, Paul A. M. van Dongen and Jo M. H. Vossen, Acta Biotheoretica, Pages 35-50, ISSN 0001-5342 (Print) 1572-8358 (Online), Issue Volume 33, Number 1, Springer Netherlands, March, 1984, DOI 10.1007/BF00045845
  73. ^ a b c A Good Tautology is Hard to Find, John S. Wilkins, Chapter 1 of Evolution and Philosophy: An Introduction, John S. Wilkins, 1997, TalkOrigins website
  74. ^ a b c d e [On the Origin of the Species], Charles Darwin, XXX, 1859
  75. ^ a b Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate between paleontologist Peter Ward and Stephen Meyer.
  76. ^ Devolution: Why Intelligent Design Isn't, H. Allen Orr, Annals of Science, The New Yorker, May 30, 2005
  77. ^ Lannes, Sophie & Alain, Boyer (1982 February 26), “Les chemins de la verite: L'Express va plus loin avec Karl Popper”, L'Express ; online German translation “Die Wege der Wahrheit. Zum Tode von Karl Popper”, Aufklärung und Kritik: p. 38, 2/1994, <http://www.gkpn.de/popper.htm> 
  78. ^ Shermer, Michael; Why People Believe Weird Things; 1997; Pages 143-144
  79. ^ Then A Miracle Occurs...An Obstreperous Evening with the Insouciant Kent Hovind, Young-Earth Creationist and Defender of the Faith, Michael Shermer, Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 24 (6): 32-36, November 2004.
  80. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Does Changing the Definition of Science Solve the Establishment Clause Problem for Teaching Intelligent Design as Science in Public Schools? Doing an End-Run Around the Constitution, Anne Marie Lofaso, Pierce Law Review, Volume 4, Number 2, p. 219-277, 2006
  81. ^ a b c Creationism, Michael Ruse, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, First published Sat Aug 30, 2003; substantive revision Mon Oct 29, 2007.
  82. ^ Nova Transcript - Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, Public Broadcasting Service airdate: November 13, 2007, NOVA, Public Broadcasting Service website
  83. ^ ID: Intelligent Design as Imitatio Dei (report on the 2007 ‘Wistar Retrospective Symposium’), report on Wistar Retrospective Symposium, Boston, MA, June 3-6, 2007, Daniel R. Brooks, Panda's Thumb weblog, February 6, 2008.
  84. ^ The Creation Explanation, Robert E. Kofahl, and Kelly L. Segraves, Wheaton, IL, Harold Shaw Publishers, p. 54, 1975
  85. ^ The "Meister Print", Glen J. Kuban, TalkOrigins website, 1998
  86. ^ The utility of Popper's philosophy in biology, Smith N, Mogie M., Bioessays. 2000 Mar;22(3):309, PMID: 10684593
  87. ^ [The incompatibility of Popper's philosophy of science with genetics and molecular biology], Holliday R., Bioessays. 1999 Oct;21(10):890-1, PMID: 10497340
  88. ^ Popper's philosophy of science: a practical tool for the working biologist, Bard J., Bioessays. 2000 Feb;22(2):205; author reply 207, PMID: 10655041
  89. ^ Don't belittle Popper. Refutation cannot be refuted in biology, either, Nagy GK, Schneider E., Bioessays. 2000 Mar;22(3):310, PMID: 10684594
  90. ^ Biologists abandon Popper at their peril, de Grey AD., Bioessays. 2000 Feb;22(2):206-7, PMID: 10655042
  91. ^ a b Grow Some Testables: Intelligent Design Ducks the Rigors of Science,, William Saletan, Slate magazine, September 29, 2005, (accessed May 22, 2006).
  92. ^ McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Guy Lancaster, Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture, The Central Arkansas Library System, Last Updated 12/7/2007
  93. ^ Act 590 of 1981, State of Arkansas 73rd General Assembly, Regular Session, 1981, McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project, Troy Britain, February 24, 2005.
  94. ^ ARKANSAS ACT 590, Katherine Ching, Origins 8(1):46-48 (1981), on Geoscience Research Institute website
  95. ^ McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education: Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton, TalkOrigins website, transcribed by Clark Dorman, last update: January 30, 1996
  96. ^ Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (92-102), 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
  97. ^ Appellate Review of Daubert Hearings, John Daley and Kirk Damman, THE JUDGE'S ROLE AS GATEKEEPER: RESPONSIBILITIES & POWERS, CHAPTER TEN, The Judicial Gatekeeping Project, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University Law School, 1999.
  98. ^ a b SCIENTIFIC MISCONCEPTIONS AMONG DAUBERT GATEKEEPERS: THE NEED FOR REFORM OF EXPERT REVIEW PROCEDURES, Jan Beyea and Daniel Berger, 64 Law & Contemporary Problems, 327, Spring/Summer 2001.
  99. ^ a b Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (92-102), 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Supreme Court Collection, Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School website
  100. ^ Daubert: The Most Influential Supreme Court Decision You Never Heard Of, A Publication of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy, coordinated by the Tellus Institute, June 2003.
  101. ^ Discussions of the Committee on Daubert Standards: Summary of Meetings (2006), Kathi E. Hanna and Anne-Marie Mazza, Rapporteurs, Committee on Daubert Standards, Committee on Science, Technology, and Law, National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2006, ISBN 0-309-10248-0
  102. ^ Daubert and Kumho: Should courts distinguish between science and engineering?, Henry Petroski, American Scientist, Volume 87 Number 5, Page: 402, September-October 1999, DOI: 10.1511/1999.5.402
  103. ^ Selman v. Cobb County School District: Amicus Curiae of Several Pro-Evolution Groups, TalkOrigins website, Posted: January 16, 2005, Links added: January 30, 2005.
  104. ^ Victory in Cobb County, National Center for Science Education website, January 13, 2005.
  105. ^ Selman v. Cobb County School District: Decision of the Court Striking Down the Cobb County Evolution Disclaimer, TalkOrigins website, Posted: January 13, 2005, Updated: December 17, 2005
  106. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design, David Mu, Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory." Professional Ethics Report, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2001.
    • Conclusion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Ruling
    • Wise, D.U., 2001, Creationism's Propaganda Assault on Deep Time and Evolution, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 49, n. 1, p. 30-35.
    • Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism, Marcus R. Ross, Journal of Geoscience Education, v. 53, n. 3, May, 2005, p. 319-323
    • The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, ISBN 0674023390.
    • In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial a United States federal court ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents" (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Conclusion of Ruling)
    • Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), AM Session, Part 1, TalkOrigins website
  107. ^ Forrest, Barbara (May,2007), Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. A Position Paper from the Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy, Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Inc., <http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf>. Retrieved on 22 August 2007 ; Forrest, B.C. and Gross, P.R., 2003, Evolution and the Wedge of Intelligent Design: The Trojan Horse Strategy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 224 p., ISBN 0195157427
    • "Dembski chides me for never using the term "intelligent design" without conjoining it to "creationism." He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in his movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to "rally the troops". (2) Am I (and the many others who see Dembski's movement in the same way) misrepresenting their position? The basic notion of creationism is the rejection of biological evolution in favor of special creation, where the latter is understood to be supernatural. Beyond this there is considerable variability...", from Wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski, Robert T. Pennock, p. 645–667 of Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Robert T. Pennock (editor), Cambridge, MIT Press, 2001, 825 p., ISBN 0262661241; Pennock, R.T., 1999, Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism, Cambridge, MIT Press, 440 p.
    • The Creation/Evolution Continuum, Eugenie Scott, NCSE Reports, v. 19, n. 4, p. 16–17, 23–25, July/August, 1999.
    • Scott, E.C., 2004, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, Westport, Greenwood Press, 296p, ISBN 0520246500
  108. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), AM Session, Part 1, TalkOrigins website
  109. ^ Kitzmiller was decided in the aftermath of Daubert. Nevertheless, in developing a version of science for the purposes of the First Amendment, Judge Jones made no explicit reference to the influential model of science devised by the Supreme Court for admissibility decision-making just one decade earlier, from page 8 of Anti-social Epistemologies, Gary Edmond and David Mercer, Social Studies of Science, 2006; 36; 843, DOI: 10.1177/0306312706067900.
  110. ^ a b Lawful Design: A New Standard for Evaluating Establishment Clause Challenges to School Science Curricula, Charles Kitcher, 39 Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 451, 457, 2006
  111. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d, 745 (M.D. Pa. 2005), John E. Jones, Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 64 of 139
  112. ^ a b Notes: Resolving the Controversy over "Teaching the Controversy": The Constitutionality of Teaching Intelligent Design in Public Schools, David R. Bauer, Fordham Law Review, Volume 75, p. 1019-1063, 2006
  113. ^ Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v Dover Decision, David K. DeWolf, John G West, Casey Luskin, and Jonathan Witt, Seattle (WA): Discovery Institute Press, March 7, 2006, ISBN 0963865498
  114. ^ Review of Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v Dover Decision by David K DeWolf, John G West, Casey Luskin, and Jonathan Witt Seattle (WA): Discovery Institute Press, 2006; 123 pages, Reviewed by Tim Beazley, Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 26 (1-2): 61-63, January 2006.
  115. ^ The Discovery Institute Quote Mines Stephen Jay Gould, John Pieret, The Quote Mine Project Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines, TalkOrigins website, Copyright © 2006, Posted: October 9, 2006
  116. ^ Peer-Review, Intelligent Design, and John Derbyshire's New Bumper Sticker (Part III), Casey Luskin, Evolution News and Views, Discovery Institute, August 4, 2006
  117. ^ Not-So-Quick But Nonetheless Dirty Review of the Kitzmiller Decision, Casey Luskin, Version 2.0, Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center website, last updated March 20, 2006
  118. ^ Establishing Religious Ideas: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design, Kent Greenawalt, 17 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Policy 321, 394, 2003
  119. ^ a b c What might logic and methodology have offered the Dover School Board, had they been willing to listen?, Neil Tennant, Public Affairs Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, April 2007, pp. 149-167
  120. ^ Kansas School Board Redefines Science, Cable News Network, Nov. 8, 2005.
  121. ^ FAQ’s about Kansas Science Standards, Kansas State Board of Education, Kansas Science Standards, Nov. 8, 2005.
  122. ^ Kansas Science Standards ix, Kansas St. Bd. of Educ., accessed May 22, 2006.
  123. ^ "Creation ... is inaccessible to the scientific method. It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place. The Creator does not create at the whim of a scientist.", page 5 of Scientific Creationism, Henry M. Morris, Master Books, 1985, ISBN 0890510032
  124. ^ We do not know how the creator (sic) created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator., page 42 of Evolution: the Fossils Say No!, Duane Gish, Master Books, 1979, ISBN 0890510466
  125. ^ "Creation is, of course, unproven and unproveable by the methods of experimental science. Neither can it qualify, according to the above criteria, as a scientific theory, since creation would have been unobservable and would as a theory be nonfalsifiable.", page 21 of Evolution: the Fossils Say No!, Duane Gish, Master Books, 1979, ISBN 0890510466
  126. ^ "creation science is not testable scientifically." (Harold Lewin); In response to a query asking if creation science is a science, "If you want to define 'science' as testable, predictable, I would say no." (Ariel Roth); from Where Is the Science in Creation Science?, Roger Lewin, Science, Volume 215, Number 4529, pages 142-144, January 8, 1982, DOI 10.1126 / science.215.4529.142


[edit] External links



Evolution is easily falsifiable. 1.) Find human fossils in the mid-Tertiary or earlier 2.) Find palaeozoic mammals 3) Precambrian vertebrates. 4) A young or a youngish earth i.e less than 100 million - consider what Kelvin nearly did to evolution after 1860 5)0 our DNA more like insects than rats



1. An earth that was relatively young. Even an earth that was less that a billion years old would create questions. However, the evidence points to a time frame in excess of 4 billion years.

2. Lack of continuity among species frameworks. If different species used different development programs (instead of just DNA), or if there were different basic structures within families, there would be questions.

3. An inconsistent fossil record, which fails to exhibit reasonable changes developed through genetic plasticity in relation to environmental stress.

4. If there is not the appearence of an intelligent designer at work. Darwinism could be questioned if natural selection did not create the appearence of intelligence in its product. Any living thing in its niche should appear to be made for that environment. And it was - through long periods of time and natural selection.

5. If there is no evidence of body modifications that lack intelligent design. In humans, this would include several structures, including the appendix, childbirth problems, need for an epiglottis, etc.

6. No relationship between animal species. Animals that lack a genetic relationship would be suggestive that Darwinism was false.

7. No predictive value. Darwinism would be assumed to be false if we were unable to predict that modifications occur in short periods of time among rapid reproducers. However, we use Darwinistic evolution to make predictions on bacteria, flu, etc.

[edit] removed section

Practicing scientists do not explicitly apply falsifiability to their work, but it still is implicitly employed by scientists since they use the scientific method. The replacement of theories that fail to adequately explain the data is an inherent component of the scientific method. Therefore, falsifiability is already built into the scientific method.[citation needed] Because the study of evolution is performed using the scientific method, evolution is a falsifiable theory.

For example, what is called the Theory of Evolution is merely the current accepted theory for process of evolution. The current theory of evolution is known as the neoDarwinian theory of evolution.[citation needed] Several other theories of evolution have preceded this neoDarwinian synthesis, such as Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis.[citation needed] These previous theories eventually fell out of favor and were discarded when they did not explain the accumulated evidence adequately. The Darwinian theory of evolution was modified to incorporate genetic information and eventually became the present neoDarwinist theory that we now refer to as the Theory of Evolution.[citation needed]


These statements are about miracles and supernatural beings are expected to be accepted on faith, and are assumed to be true. Therefore, by definition,


[edit] Australian rough draft

(Ruse, 1996, pp.302, 360; Gould, 1983, p.256; Meyer, 1994, p.77; Ratzsch, 2001, pp.107-108) and is therefore not scientific. But there is an obvious contradiction in trying to have it both ways, claiming that creationism is simultaneously both unfalsifiable and falsified (Laudan L., 1996b, pp.351-352; Behe, 2000).




Ratzsch D.L., 2001, "Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science," State University of New York Press: Albany NY.

Ruse M., ed., 1996, "But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY.


(Meyer, 1994, pp.82-86; Laudan, 1996a-c; Quinn, 1996; Chalmers, 1982, p.167).

Chalmers A.F., 1982, "What is this thing called Science?: An Assessment of the Nature and Status of Science and its Method," University of Queensland Press: St Lucia, Queensland, Australia, Second Edition, 1994, reprint.

Quinn P.L., 1996, "Creationism, Methodology, and Politics," in Ruse M., ed., "But is it Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.367-385.


[edit] To do

  1. clean up references, harvard references, duplication etc
  2. check talkorigins for more material
  3. look at NAS 3 books
  4. look at australian rough draft for more stuff
  5. check version 1 of this paper for more links and material
  6. try to fill in "citation needed"
  7. comparison with gravity for objections to evolution [1]
  1. consider http://philosophy.wisc.edu/Sober/what's%20wrong%20with%20id%20qrb%202007.pdf