Category Archives: philosophy

There are still several games in town..

Dawkins at the University of Texas at Austin.
Dawkins at the University of Texas at Austin. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A recent interview with Richard Dawkins shows in a summarized way what Dawkins thinks about evolution. When talking about education, Dawkins said:

There’s only one game in town as far as serious science is concerned. It’s not that there are two different theories. No serious scientist doubts that we are cousins of gorillas, we are cousins of monkeys, we are cousins of snails, we are cousins of earthworms. We have shared ancestors with all animals and all plants. There is no serious scientist who doubts that evolution is a fact.

Look at what is happening: A world-renowned defender of evolution decries flat-out that evolution is a fact. Sure, there is an overwhelming evidence for evolutionary theory, and that explains that he is saying that evolution is a fact. Just like gravity.

Continue reading There are still several games in town..

Advertisements

Falsification, scientific theory and creationism

Charles Darwin. 1 negative : glass ; 5 x 7 in....
Charles Darwin. 1 negative : glass ; 5 x 7 in. or smaller. From a photograph by Elliott & Fry. 

I have seen many creationist books that  used the principle of falsification as a way to claim that the evolution theory is not true because it cannot be falsified.

Yet I believe that the evolution theory is a sound scientific theory, and can indeed be falsified. When creationist talk about the principle of falsification they should remember several things.

  1. Hypothesis are tested in bundles: Theories do not stand on there own. Most of the time, several theories make up the whole framework of statements, theories, etc. In the case of the evolution theory we see many theories which combined are the Darwinist theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

A framework of theories like the evolution theory should fulfill three major criteria.

  1. The individual theories are able to be falsified
  2. The science in general should be productive and give new insight to old problems, and at the same time give rise to new questions and solutions.
  3. The framework should be unified.

Those three principles have to be found in evolution theory to call it a solid scientific theory. The first principle can be easily shown for every single theory and because I do not know every single theory, I cannot say that this is true. The second principle can be seen in the many questions that have risen in the field of evolution.  And also the origin of evolutionary psychology  and evolutionary economy show that the evolution theory is productive. The final principle can be found in the fact that the evolution theory shows again and again the same type of reasoning. The evolution theory is therefore unified.

A sound scientific theory loses its credibility when the cornerstones under the theory are shown to be falsified. Then the building will collapse, or new key theories will be developed to account for the changes. That’s science! A continuous building up and down of theories.

Creationists need to give the evolution theory credit where credit is due. Yet at the same time it is my opinion that based on a biblical world view I cannot say that the evolution theory is true. A more deepened christian view on science is desperately needed, which needs to show that creationism is not just folklore, or pseudoscience,  but has on its own also explanatory value.

When creationists show that the biblical view has explanatory value and could indeed explain the vast complexity and different things that are around use, and fulfill the above marked principles of a solid scientific theory then creationism could be called scientific.

As of now, I think that creationism is not real science, but can only be placed into the category of pseudoscience. Still it is known that pseudoscience can become a ‘real science’.

For one moment think of how many sciences you know that first were pseudoscience, and are now proliferating scientific disciplines?

There’s hope for us all.