What makes evolution a scientifically proven fact or even science?
What I mean is that how can it be considered science if it goes against te very philosophy of science?
My dad recently read a book on the philosophy of science and read excerpts to me. It said that for something to be science it hast to be recordable, testable and repeatable. Evolution is none of these things.
It also said that as much as scientists want to prove something they cannot prove anything. For example if they dropped a ball 5000 times off a building and it fell to the ground each time all they know is that out of 5000 times of being dropped the ball hit the ground 5000 times. Using this evidence they could predict that the 5001st time it was dropped it would hit the ground but they couldn't prove it unless they actually did it. Even then some philosophers could argue that they were mistaken and it did not necessarily hit the ground. In the same way using evidence scientists can predict guess that evolution occurred but they can't prove it. (I personally do not believe in evolution but that I do not want to get in an argument about that.)
The aim of science is to gain the knowledge as close to the truth as possible. Since evolution cannot be repeated, tested or recorded and since nothing can actually be proved according to the founders of modern science I pose the same question.
What makes evolution a scientifically proven fact of even science?
Please give proper answers. I am genuinely intrigued and am not looking to annoy anyone or insult them. Thank you
yutgoyun2011-06-17T14:39:03Z
Favorite Answer
Firstly, the "philosophy of science" itself is an interesting thing. And you are right in that that is an important place to start - a lot of (genuine) scientists won't admit or acknowledge there are different approaches to science. For example, many are stuck on the idea that in order for something to be scientific, it needs to be falsifiable. But even that is hard to apply to "evolution."
However, the common theme in science is attempting to explain what happens in the world truthfully, WITHOUT invoking the supernatural. This often means falsifying, it often means predicting, it often means testing, but not always. We can all think of examples that we would consider "science" that do not meet these strict criteria (descriptive scientific observations are a good example). However, you will never find an example of science, where, when something can't be explained, a supernatural cause is provided.
So what can we say about evolution?
Well, we need to define it first. Most broadly defined, evolution theory is simply attempting to explain, in a scientific manner how populations change genetically over time. So the theory itself evolves, and yes, in that way it is not testable, repeated, or recorded. But individual parts of it are. Importantly, a theory implies something that happens broadly - the exact same conditions do not necessarily need to occur, but in that way we can still see general trends.
(True repetition isn't actually necessary to do science. Think about weather prediction - models are never based on exactly the same conditions; but we apply models that have similar occurrences in many different places, and hope that it can make a prediction. Regression for example doesn't require repetition.)
If you have more questions about individual parts of modern evolutionary thought feel free to contact me, or ask more questions here. This answer is long enough as it is.
Don't be discouraged by some of the more militant answers here.
Egad...you don't know the first thing about evolution, physics, biology, or chemistry do you? There isn't a group of people called "evolutionists" the way you have creationists. It's nothing more special than the multiplication table. Evolution only covers the period AFTER life began on earth. It traces the development of life forms, not their formation. That would fall under abiogenesis, another topic entirely. Let's take it from the top...evolution and abiogenesis don't cover the formation of the universe. No, chemicals were not around forever. The evidence you listed above has been known for about 20-30 years, since the time of Edwin Hubble. What we have found recently is that the structure of reality might not even be consistent. Don't jump so quickly to "supernatural." "If we can't explain it, it must be supernatural!" Well can you explain how a computer screen works? If not, it must be supernatural! There IS such a thing as not knowing...yet. And sometimes you have to be fine with that. Yes there are plenty of failed dials. Mars, Venus, Mercury, and every planet besides earth. Enough debunking. Time for some answers. Big bang started off the universe with extreme expansion. Initial energy density meant atoms couldn't even condense. Think of steam. After a few billion, stars began to form. We know this because light travels slowly enough for some of these events to just reach us now. After few more billion, planet earth formed. Water everywhere, mud, land, etc. Ahh too much to write and too tired. Google it.
RE: What makes evolution a scientifically proven fact or even science? What I mean is that how can it be considered science if it goes against te very philosophy of science?
My dad recently read a book on the philosophy of science and read excerpts to me. It said that for something to be science it hast to be recordable, testable and repeatable. Evolution is none...
"What makes evolution a scientifically proven fact or even science?"
Evolution is a fact as it's seen to occur on a daily basis. Populations of organisms change due to descent with modification as acted upon by natural selection, and that's evolution. "Scientifically proven fact" means nothing in particular. A fact is a fact.
"It said that for something to be science it hast to be recordable, testable and repeatable. Evolution is none of these things."
As it's observed happening on a daily basis, you're wrong.
"It also said that as much as scientists want to prove something..."
As science isn't about proving things, it's a process of falsification, either you've misunderstood the book, or else it's garbage.
"Since evolution cannot be repeated, tested or recorded..." Try doing Mendel's pea experiment. Try growing bacteria in stringent conditions for 1,000 generations, compare them to the source strain, then repeat the experiment. Just like the dropping the ball, the experiment has to be repeatable. You don't have to pour a new concrete sidewalk each time. The requirement for repetition applies to experiments, and repeated experiments show extensive evidence for evolution.
"It also said that as much as scientists want to prove something they cannot prove anything." There is always room for error. As for the utility of the information gathered, consider this: you are on a 4th story balcony over a concrete patio. You drop a fragile (but inexpensive) vase off the balcony and it shatters on impact. You have to go to the store to get more vases to repeat the experiment. Based on the information gathered without a repetition, do you leave the building by leaping from the balcony or take the stairs?
Atomic theory and quantum mechanics can't be proven, but you use your computer in which the ideas are critical to semiconductor design. Similarly, the power for you computer probably comes from oil or coal found using evolutionary principles of succession. Your food was grown using pesticides administered on the principle of minimizing the evolution of resistant strains.