And yet many of them argue as if a favorite theory is set in stone.
As Karl Popper suggests the best scientific theories are not the generalizations with massive explanatory power but rather the ones with the highest information content, the greatest specificity and thereby, which can be falsified.
Frankly, the surest things we can say describing the physical world are mathematical, i.e. because of math "proofs." Beyond that, science is theory upon theory - subject to falling like a house of cards.
Yes — but how does one "falsify" macroevolution theory? Or panspermia theory? It seems to me they are both unfalsifiable; so I don't understand how they get ranked as "scientific" theories to begin with.
Doesn't the scientific method require falsifiability — such that what is not falsifiable does not qualify as an object for science?
What is the "information content" and "specificity" of macroevolution theory? (Or panspermia? Or special creation?)
Questions, questions. Is there a Darwinist out there who can give me any answers?
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your excellent essay/post!
>>Frankly, the surest things we can say describing the physical world are mathematical, i.e. because of math “proofs.” Beyond that, science is theory upon theory - subject to falling like a house of cards. <<
As happened with Newtonian science — yet, apples did not cease to fall from trees.
The point is that scientific theories are broad principles that describe natural phenomenon. TToE is one of many theories that are perhaps subject to being overridden. Say, if a modern human skeleton was found in a 100 million year strata. But, rather than undermining TToE, the more data we find the more the theory is clarified. There are certainly gaps and changes in individual threads (those ggg loves to tout as “eliminating TToE”) but the overall theory has never been challenged by any real data nor has an alternate theory been proposed.
We have seen TToE in action and put it to use in things like antibiotics. To just throw up our hands and say “well, everything is after all just a theory” is both inaccurate and inapplicable.
A Scientific Theory is the highest order in the hierarchy of science. It is the most significant tool in the scientist’s drawer and is why you can own and use a computer (as a practical and personal example of scientific theories in practice).
Darwin’s observations and chronicle thereof established a framework for the theory — one that has stood the test of time and data.
And as much as ggg would have it be otherwise this isn’t about Darwin, any more than physics is about Newton and Einstein or astronomy is about Copernicus. It is about understanding how real science works — across all disciplines.