http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF3-06NelsonF.pdf
Volume 58, Number 1, March 2006 31
Fredric P. Nelson
Questions for debate:No Scientific Theory of Evolution Exists
The National Academy of Sciences wrote: “Evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.”17 Is this statement true?
Confusion exists between the definition of a scientific
theory, a scientific hypothesis, and the popular definition
of a theory. Many scientists talk about a scientific theory
when, in fact, they are talking about a scientific hypothesis
or conjecture.
The National Association of Biology Teachers stated:
In science, a theory is not a guess or an approximation
but an extensive explanation developed from welldocumented,
reproducible sets of experimentallyderived
data from repeated observations of natural
processes. The National Academy of Science stated that:
An idea that has not been sufficiently tested is called a hypothesis. Different hypotheses are sometimes advanced to explain the same factual evidence.
Rigor in the testing of hypotheses is the heart of science. If no verifiable tests can be formulated, the idea is called an ad hoc hypothesis. Therefore, a scientific theory requires confirmatory data derived from valid, reproducible, scientific experimentation and cannot be based on observations alone. A scientific hypothesis is “an unproved theory, proposition, supposition, etc. tentatively accepted to explain certain facts or to provide a basis for further
investigation.”
In common usage, a theory is “a speculative idea or plan as to how
something might be done, and, popularly, a mere conjecture or guess.” For naturalistic evolution to be a scientific theory, each of three components must be a scientific theory. They are:
(1) the naturalistic evolution of the
first cell;
(2) naturalistic microevolution; and
(3) naturalistic macroevolution.
John Rennie wrote: “The origin of life remains very much a mystery.” Alvin
Plantinga wrote: “(A)t present all such accounts of the origin of life are at best
enormously problematic.” Since a scientific theory cannot be based on a scientific mystery or on enormously problematic accounts, the naturalistic evolution of the first cell cannot be a component of a scientific theory of evolution.
Francisco Ayala wrote: “[S]cience relies on observation, replication and experimentation, but nobody has seen the origin of the universe or the evolution of species, nor have these events been replicated in the laboratory or by experiment.”
David Depew wrote:
“I could not agree more with the claim that contemporary Darwinism lacks models that can explain the evolution of cellular pathways and the problem of the origin of life.”
A scientific theory cannot be based on events that have been neither observed nor
replicated, and a scientific theory cannot be based on the unknown evolution of cellular pathways. Nor can a scientific theory be based on promissory materialism. As noted earlier, naturalistic macroevolution has absolutely no unique and unequivocal supporting data and is an irrational scientific hypothesis. Naturalistic macroevolution is not a component of a scientific theory of evolution. No scientific theory of evolution exists because the naturalistic evolution of the first cell and naturalistic macroevolution do not qualify as scientific theories. The naturalistic
evolution of the first cell and naturalistic macroevolution are actually ad hoc hypotheses, because the exact chemical and physical conditions present during specific steps in evolution cannot be known and because no scientific data exist to indicate that a specific mechanism was actually operative for any specific step.
Mayr wrote that evolutionary biology is a historical science based on observation,
comparison, and classification and that experimentation is inappropriate for understanding the historical progression of evolution. He claims that theories in evolutionary biology are based on concepts rather than laws as is the case in the physical sciences. The evolutionary biology of Mayr is an ordering and stratification of data, not a scientific theory. Further, the observations, comparisons, and classifications taking place in evolutionary biology do not and cannot reveal causative agency.
Does evolution meet the criteria as set forth by the Amicus Curiae Brief submitted by the 72 Nobel laureates, 17 state academies, and 7 other science organizations as a theory based on their short definition of the scientific method:
Facts: The properties of natural Phenomena. They come from observation. The scientific method involves rigorous, methodological testing of principles that might present a naturalistic explanation of those facts.
Hypotheses: Based on well established facts, testable hypotheses are formed. The process of testing leads scientists to accord a special dignity to those hypotheses that accumulate substantial observational and experimental support. Theories.
Theory: This special dignity is accorded when it explains a large and diverse body of facts, is considered robust, and if it consistently predicts new phenomena that are subsequently observed to deem it reliable.
Is it nothing more than a hypothesis or should we humor the author of this article and develop an entire new terminology for this evolution so as not to confuse it with an actual theory.
My own position, it meets the criteria as set forth to be a theory. It is testable, and the Human Genome Project proved that we can in fact make predict new phenomena was well as track old as in the case of ARE's for old phenomena predictions and genetic sequences for current predictions. That alone isn't my sole reason, rather the convergence of evidence is what makes it a strong theory in my opinion, but I have to wonder if I am inserting my own bias.
