The philosopher Karl Popper proposed a criterion for a scientific theory is that it must not simply pass experimental tests but that it must be formulated in such a way that falsification is, in principle, possible, which has been widely accepted in the scientific community [1]. The criterion is there so that a theory can be corrected/edited to be accurate, i.e. a theory that is proven false must be corrected until it can’t be proven wrong and is thus accepted as a fact or law.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution hasn’t been ‘corrected’ despite the evidence mounting against it as discussed in the previous articles in this series. Unfortunately, many in the scientific community no longer approach evolution scientifically. As much as they criticise scientists who support Intelligent Design for doing so out of ‘religious biases’, they fail to consider evidence that is incompatible with evolution to the extent that it’s become invincible to scientific thinking itself.
If respectable scientists would be willing to entertain hypothetical questions, it would be interesting to hear their answers to the following:
- If God created the universe as the Bible claims, what kind of evidence would convince them of its truth?
- If Darwinian Evolution was false, what evidence would be enough to debunk the theory once and for all?
- If the age of the earth was less than 10,000 years old, what evidence would convince them?
Statements have been made by scientists saying that regardless of any ‘evidence’ brought forward, they will still prefer Darwinism to any other account of origins, for to do otherwise is unscientific. Similarly, renowned atheists have openly stated that they would not accept any evidence of the existence of God and would rather believe they are hallucinating (Richard Dawkins [2]) or have succumbed to madness (Peter Atkins [3]).
Peter Robinson interviewed Stephen Meyer after the release of his book “The Return of the God Hypothesis”, where they discuss whether Intelligent Design can be a valid scientific alternative to evolution. You can watch the full interview here. [4].
How can a scientific theory survive when there are scientific pieces of evidence to disprove it? At what point does a scientific theory become unscientific and moved into the realm of pseudoscience?
Here are only a few of the theories which have been highly disputed or even discarded in the scientific community after new evidence arose:
Continental Drift – “describes one of the earliest ways geologists thought continents moved over time. Today, the theory of continental drift has been replaced by the science of plate tectonics.” [5]
Maternal imagination – the idea that maternal thoughts during pregnancy are transmitted directly to the developing foetus, resulting in a congenital disorder at birth. [6]
Spontaneous Generation – the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from non-living matter; also, the archaic theory utilized this process to explain the origin of life. According to that theory, pieces of cheese and bread wrapped in rags and left in a dark corner, for example, were thus thought to produce mice, because after several weeks there were mice in the rags. [7]
Biogenetic law – “a theory of development much disputed in biology: an organism passes through successive stages resembling the series of ancestral types from which it has descended so that the ontogeny of the individual is a recapitulation of the phylogeny of the group” [8] I.e. the human foetus during the early stages looks like a fish, so humans are descended from fish.
Telegony – it alleged that the heredity of an individual is influenced not only by his father but also by males with whom the female may have mated previously and have caused previous pregnancies. [9]
Flat Earth – the perception that Earth exists as a flat disk, either circular or square-shaped. This view persisted in the ancient world until empirical observations revealed that Earth’s shape was spherical or ellipsoidal. [10]
A scientific experiment was conducted by Javier Rodríguez and Itxaso Barberia from the University of Barcelona, and they published their journal article on the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine website. Here is a quote from their concluding paragraph:
“In conclusion, our study provides evidence indicating that endorsement of unwarranted beliefs [pseudoscience] is associated with low evidential criteria, leading individuals to test fewer hypotheses before settling on one of them, hence showing a jump-to-conclusions bias.” [11]
Interestingly, an article on evolution on Britannica.com said:
“Evolutionists no longer are concerned with obtaining evidence to support the fact of evolution but rather are concerned with what sorts of knowledge can be obtained from different sources of evidence.” [12] (Emphasis was added.)
In conclusion to this series of seven articles, we’d like to reiterate a previous thought.
When there are scientific facts that contradict a scientific theory, how can that theory remain valid? At what point does a scientific theory become unscientific?
References:
[1] Pippard, A. Brian. “Principles of physical science”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 4 Oct. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/science/principles-of-physical-science/ Accessed 17 March 2025.
[2] Richard Dawkins in conversation with Peter Boghossian, October 11th 2013 at Portland State University, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoQurwEZmmQ [12:30 – 13:22]
[3] Hugh Ross vs Peter Atkins: Debating the origins of the laws of nature, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVCVt-dvVOc , [58:25 – 58:40].
[4] Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis, Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson: Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
[5] Continental Drift, National Geographic Society – Encyclopaedic Entry. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/continental-drift/
[6] Snyder, Sharon L.. “Maternal imagination”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 31 Aug. 2017, https://www.britannica.com/science/maternal-imagination/ Accessed 14 March 2025.
[7] The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Spontaneous generation”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 13 Sep. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/science/spontaneous-generation
[8] “Biogenetic law.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biogenetic%20law/ Accessed 14 Mar. 2025.
[9] https://www.britannica.com/science/telegony
[10] Baugh, L. Sue. “Flat Earth”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 23 Dec. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/flat-Earth/ Accessed 14 March 2025.
[11] Rodríguez-Ferreiro, J., & Barberia, I. (2021). Believers in pseudoscience present lower evidential criteria. Scientific reports, 11(1), 24352. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03816-5
[12] Ayala, Francisco Jose. “evolution”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 26 Feb. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/ Accessed 14 March 2025.
The previous articles in this series:
The Scientificity of Evolution 1 - Comparison to a scientific law
The Scientificity of Evolution 2 – Observability Criterion
The Scientificity of Evolution 3 – Experimental Criterion
The Scientificity of Evolution 4 – Retrodiction Criterion
The Scientificity of Evolution 5 – Prediction Criterion
The Scientificity of Evolution 6 – Consistency Criterion
For similar articles, follow the link below:
Category – Evolution vs Intelligent Design
