Recently, a blogger challenged my claim that evolution is an unfalsifiable tautology.
He stated that an internet search would provide all I needed [dare I remind my gentle readers that not eerything on the internet is entirely credible?] and specifically directed me to this site:
TalkOrigins.org [certainly not the most unbiased site where the evolution/creation debate is concerned] gives the following 4 examples of how evolution might be falsified. They’re all bunk:
1. A static fossil record.
Ironically, we do have a static fossil record. Every kind of species appears in thnbe fossil record fully formed and identical to what we see today. There are variations within each kind of animal, but there is no evidence of transitional forms leading up their development. Yet they’ve explained the fossil record away as being imperfect*, which was Darwin’s original fudge.
2. A true chimaera.
The platypus is a true chimaera and they had no problem shrugging it off. To say a chimaera would falsify evolutionary tautology when irreducible complexity did not phase these demogogues is purely misleading. Their modus operandi for processing evidence that does not fit their preconceptions is well documented: they either ignore it, explain it away or adapt the theory to fit it.
3. A mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating.
Mutations weren’t the original candidate for how changes accumulate. It is part of the modern synthesis, not the original theory. Many scientists are now dissatisfied with the theory of accumulated mutations and are searching for a new candidate.
4. Observations of organisms being created.
This is just another red herring. If scientists created life they would crow that evolution had triumphed, even though it would really only be evidence for life being created or designed. What they mean is if God were observed creating. Oh, if only God would submit himself to scientific verification! they lament falsely. If God created anew, we would not see God creating, only the effect [the new creation] since God creates by speaking. Scientists would likely explain it away as an as yet undiscovered species or evidence of punctuated equilibrium. But they would in fact explain it away.
The allegation that Creationism is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims that evolution has been falsified is a straw man. Creationists do in fact believe that evolution is an unfalsifiable tautology. We believ it can neither be proven nor disproven, much like the belief in God. On the other hand, we believe that, while evolution cannot be falsified, it is in fact false or untrue. We believe that belief in theistic origins is more reasonable than evolutionary speculation.
Yet in the end it is simply this: or beliefs supported by weights of evidences and lines of arguments versus their beliefs supported by weights of evidences and lines of argument.
And that’s what they don’t want to admit.
*Another blogger suggested that out-of-place fossils [like a Triceratops fossil in the Devonian rocks] would falsify evolution, but she was unaware that such out-of-place fossils do exist and are explained away by the imperfect fossil record.
Addendum: Several bloggers have mentioned a famous rebuttal that evolution would be falsifiable simply if we found rabbit fossils in Pre-Cambrian rocks. Unfortunately, they forget that fossils are not dated by the rocks they are found in; quite the opposite, rocks are dated by the fossils they contain. Any rocks containing rabbit fossils would be dated accordingly [as least where evolutionists are concerned].