RE: We’re open to any explanation that fits the available evidence, and which is consistent with known physical law. That’s the catch, of course: science can ONLY deal with the physical. If it can’t be observed, measured, and tested, then it isn’t science.
___________________________
Then alas, most of what purports to be evolutionary science cannot fit the above criteria.
It has been noticed for instance that many dogmatic Evolutionists will often argue that the theory has predictive value.
They will come up with some predictions and ‘hey presto!’ our observations match those predictions. What they don’t tell you is that the observations actually CAME FIRST, then they thought up a way to explain those observations in evolutionary terms. Those explanations turned into predictions, but they can only predict the observations they were invented to explain.
I will concede that of course that there was one prediction made using the theory of evolution. It was predicted that the fossil record would show a smooth transition from species to species. Noe that is an eminently falsifiable prediction which can be observed.
Alas, the fossil record contradicts this prediction.
The fossil record actually shows that species tend to remain the same for very long periods of geological time, then undergo a burst of rapid change (none of which is caught in the fossil record) then emerge as a completely different species.
But being so adaptable, the theory of evolution was simply changed to match this observation. Thus, the current version of the theory of evolution can be successfully used to ‘predict’ trends in the fossil record.
It has been noticed for instance that many dogmatic Evolutionists will often argue that the theory has predictive value.
They will come up with some predictions and ‘hey presto!’ our observations match those predictions. What they don’t tell you is that the observations actually CAME FIRST, then they thought up a way to explain those observations in evolutionary terms. Those explanations turned into predictions, but they can only predict the observations they were invented to explain.
Paleontologists will say that they can predict where to look for certain kinds of fossils. Then they can look and find the fossils. I'm a molecular biologist; my interest during graduate school was to better understand a certain metabolic pathway. Because the fossil record and genetic analysis of modern species shows that mammals all have a common ancestor, we predict that all mammals have that same pathway. So far, every time someone has looked at a different mammal, they have found that pathway. There was even a group of researchers who hypothesized that bony fish might also have that pathway--and when they looked for it, they found it. It was slightly different (in a manner consistent with evolutionary theory), but it *was* there. Now that we know bony fish and mammals have that pathway, we can hypothesize that *all* vertebrates have it. We can further hypothesize that it is present only in bony vertebrates, or that the pathway arose in primitive vertebrates (those with a notochord, but no skeleton). Those are all testable predictions, and only research will show which is right.
That is just one example of how I, as a molecular biologist, use evolutionary theory to make predictions. Whenever I have made a prediction (i.e. hypothesis) based on evolutionary theory, my experiments have always shown that my prediction was correct.
For scientists to try to do experiments without making a prediction first is... well, unimaginable. I keep trying to think of a way one could conduct research in a methodical fashion without a hypothesis, and I just can't do it. The order of research always is:
I will concede that of course that there was one prediction made using the theory of evolution. It was predicted that the fossil record would show a smooth transition from species to species. Noe that is an eminently falsifiable prediction which can be observed.
Alas, the fossil record contradicts this prediction.
No scientists ever made that prediction; that is a young-earth creationist misrepresentation of both the theory and the fossil record. Most dead animals completely decay within a few weeks--a fact that anyone can see, if they drive along a road where an animal was killed, and animal control never stops by to pick up the carcass. The conditions for preserving any part of a carcass so that it fossilizes are exceedingly rare. Therefore, we predict that the fossil record is spotty, and that fossils will only be found in certain types of geological formations. We can make other predictions about the fossil record, too--for instance, we can predict that we will not find vertebrate fossils from a few million years ago lodged within billion year old fossils of bacterial mats in a manner that suggests they co-fossilized; indeed, no one has ever found that.
The fossil record actually shows that species tend to remain the same for very long periods of geological time, then undergo a burst of rapid change (none of which is caught in the fossil record) then emerge as a completely different species.
No, what the fossil record shows is that, at a specific point in time, there were certain species, and at another specific point in time millions of years later, there were other species that resemble the first species but are not the same. The observation that there are bones of animals that do not exist, which was made long before there were systematic sciences, was what led to the various evolutionary theories. Even the ancient Greeks had a theory about it.
If you want to know what the fossil record really shows, and what the theory of evolution really says, you need to read the various scientific articles on those subjects. The articles on Wikipedia are fairly accurate. Creation "science" websites only present pseudoscience; they care more about getting your money than they do the truth.
But being so adaptable, the theory of evolution was simply changed to match this observation. Thus, the current version of the theory of evolution can be successfully used to ‘predict’ trends in the fossil record.
First of all, keep in mind that the process of evolution is what we observe happening; the theory is our best explanation of how it happens. The process itself does not change because we revise the theory.
I would actually be pretty surprised if Darwin had devised a theory that explained everything there is about evolution, and there was no need to revise it. While the "creation science" websites try to imply that revising the theory as new facts are revealed is a weakness, in actuality, it's pretty common to revise theories. In medicine, for example, a physician who makes a presumptive diagnosis at your initial visit might completely change the diagnosis after lab results come back.
In evolution, all species continuously undergo a process called "genetic drift." On occasion, however, a massive die-off occurs, then new species emerge to fill the gaps. Stephen Jay Gould put these facts together to come up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium. To illustrate this, consider two species living in a field. The mice eat grains and the rabbits eat blades of grass. Once in a while, a rabbit might give birth to a baby rabbit that prefers to eat grain, but that mutant rabbit has little chance of surviving to reproduce, because mice are already eating the grain. So, the two populations are kept in equilibrium. But now cats move into the field, and kill all the mice. In the absence of competition for the grain, the grain eating rabbits can survive and reproduce. The field ends up populated with two different kinds of rabbit.
Now, I will give an example of what I would expect if I were to try to make scientific hypotheses based on the creation stories of Genesis:
1. Adam and Eve were genetically identical. Presumably, the only difference was that Adam's Y chromosome was replaced with a duplicate X chromosome in Eve.
2. Because God is perfect, He would not create anything that is imperfect. Therefore, the medium used to carry "blueprints" from parent to child must be perfect.
My hypothesis, then, is that all humans are virtually identical. Some minor differences might occur (for instance, larger lungs at higher altitude to make up for lower oxygen). Hmm, I don't see that...