Evolution: Philosophy, yes. Science, no.

Today's admonition brought to you by: Paul

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." - I Timothy 6:20-21
    - Posted on my Facebook wall


(I expect this to turn into a whole series of articles over time. As such, I only want to start the general premise today and see where we go from there.)

I pride myself on having at least a sixth-grade understanding of science and a smattering of insight into philosophy. I am a firm believer in the value of both; philosophy contains our approach to understanding or at least approaching truth, and science is a powerful branch of philosophy. Without at least the basic mindsets, we could never have advanced anywhere near where we are right now.

That said, there are many who hold anything proclaimed "scientific" as indisputable and infallible. If a matter has been settled, they reason, there are few valid circumstances for raising a question against it, much less attempting to refute it. The problem here is that a scientific claim is a UNIVERSAL ASSERTION - so long as certain conditions are met, the claim must hold true. If one piece of evidence can consistently demonstrate a flaw in the claim, it is not scientifically true.  If I could, consistently, without any force, move myself through space freely and unimpeded by gravity, I would demonstrate that the laws of gravity are not true. A new hypothesis about gravity would then be necessary, and it would not be true until it proved itself irrefutable.

The other fundamental principle of science is TESTABILITY. If you cannot test a claim, it cannot be declared scientifically true. There is no scientific proof of George Washington crossing the Delaware in 1776, because we cannot test George Washington crossing the Delaware in 1776. We have evidences of George Washington crossing the Delaware in 1776, but evidence is only useful in other branches of philosophy, not science.

How does this apply to Evolution? If Evolution were scientific, we should be able to test Evolution, to invalidate its hypothesis by direct testing, something that no one believes we can do. If Evolution were scientific, we should be able to declare it not scientifically true if we can find one scenario which consistently violates the hypothesis.

Contrary evidence would certainly be sufficient to question Evolution if it were scientific, but it is not scientific because it cannot meet the testability requirement. Thus, we must find new philosophical grounds on which to validate or invalidate the assertion of Evolution.

I propose that we evaluate the philosophical assertion of Evolution based on three criteria: its premises, its evidences, and its fruits. By premises, I mean the philosophical and scientific suppositions that are inherent in the claim. By evidences, I mean testimonies and evidences that show the truth of the premises. By fruits, I mean the effects of the philosophy on those individuals who hold it to be true.


Because if Evolution cannot pass the tests of a valid philosophical stance with benefit to mankind, it ought to be discarded.