Is evolutionary theory written in stone?
I have posted this elsewhere but thought it was worth saying . I have always loved science and have qualifications in the subject . However I do realise that science has its limitations . We should not worship science or think scientists and their work are infallible as all scientific theories are just our present thoughts on that particular matter. Unfortunately there are some people who appear to put science on a far higher realm of almost infallibility and do not appear to know that scientific theories which were once accepted as facts have gone to the wall in the light of further research.
In the case of Darwinism, there is an additional difficulty. Well, Charles Darwin wanted to offer an explanation of how the present forms of animal and plant life emerged, he found that some of the pieces of evidence in that argument were inevitably historical. Any attempt to verify the Darwinian theory of evolution requires knowledge of the past yet can the scientific method be actually applied to the study of the past? The point is that such a method must use presently accessible evidence to reconstruct what happened in the past . The problem lies with the degree of plausibility with which it can be done. So important was this difficulty that in 1976 Karl Popper expressed hesitation over whether the Darwinian theory of natural selection could strictly be said to fall within the scope of a scientific method and hence be deemed scientific in character.
Although many evolutionists now think this to be an overreaction based on a legitimate concern, there remains a significant degree of uncertainty and provisionality to any conclusions that are based on the past, precisely because we cannot directly access the earths past history .
It is interesting that even 'Darwin's Rottweiler', Richard Dawkins, sees this:
" Darwin may be triumphant at the end of the 20th century, but we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force the successes of the 21st-century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition ."
In the case of Darwinism, there is an additional difficulty. Well, Charles Darwin wanted to offer an explanation of how the present forms of animal and plant life emerged, he found that some of the pieces of evidence in that argument were inevitably historical. Any attempt to verify the Darwinian theory of evolution requires knowledge of the past yet can the scientific method be actually applied to the study of the past? The point is that such a method must use presently accessible evidence to reconstruct what happened in the past . The problem lies with the degree of plausibility with which it can be done. So important was this difficulty that in 1976 Karl Popper expressed hesitation over whether the Darwinian theory of natural selection could strictly be said to fall within the scope of a scientific method and hence be deemed scientific in character.
Although many evolutionists now think this to be an overreaction based on a legitimate concern, there remains a significant degree of uncertainty and provisionality to any conclusions that are based on the past, precisely because we cannot directly access the earths past history .
It is interesting that even 'Darwin's Rottweiler', Richard Dawkins, sees this:
" Darwin may be triumphant at the end of the 20th century, but we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force the successes of the 21st-century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition ."
