The Scientific Method: Darwinism or Design Part 2
Darwin Fights Back
Ellie Pratt

Now that we have investigated what allows one theory to gain validity and acceptance over others, does Darwin’s account of evolution fit this framework of ‘good science’? Claims that Darwinism is unscientific are most often made by those who see it as an attack on their fundamental religious beliefs.

The Creationist argument (and more recently that of proponents of Intelligent Design) rests on misuse of Popperian falsification and the misleading phrase that evolution is ‘just a theory’ and, therefore, not believable. The latter, as we have seen, is an invalid argument. It is the inherent nature of science that many argument are ‘just a theory’. This status should not be seen as a negative thing; rather it is one of the features that lend authority to science – nothing is infallible, and as such, science must be “self-correcting”. Intelligent Design proponents, though, often present their theory as more scientific than Darwinian evolution , contending that “science demands proof…[and]…proof of evolution is not forthcoming” (Kitcher 1982:31).

Of course, we do not live long enough to see full-scale evolution in progress, but we can test individually the auxiliary hypotheses of which Darwinian evolution is composed. The distinction drawn by Darwin’s opponents in contrasting science with religion is too simple; it is not as easy as saying that science is a matter of proof. Kitcher contends that, for a theory to be “genuine[ly] scientific”, its auxiliary hypotheses must have “observational consequences” in order to be testable. Here, the strength of Darwinian evolution can be seen, providing claims that are testable and not as yet falsified.

Questions at the time that were unanswered by the claims of Darwinian theory have since been investigated and answers found to be consistent with Darwin’s theory. For example, until quite recently, the mechanisms of genetic inheritance were not understood. Had they contradicted the Darwinian model, it would have been necessary to modify the theory. However, these mechanisms are now explained and fit the model of Darwinian evolution, making sense of the spread of advantageous variations, not only complementing but also giving strength to the theory. This result exemplifies what Kitcher refers to as the “predictive success” of good science.

If we concede (as most scientists do) that there is only a reasonable model for scientific method rather than a clear demarcation, and that scientific theory is ‘good’ when it fits the mould of this model, we can see that Darwin’s account of evolution, while ‘just a theory,’ can be counted as a good and believable one. While there is debate among evolutionary biologists as to whether Darwin’s gradualism is the best explanatory mechanism for change, there has been no conclusive test (scientific or otherwise) that discredits the claims of Darwinism. We must hope that, in the spirit of science, when such a test occurs, evidence will sustain Darwinian theory or move us on to a new theory.

As it stands, Darwinism fits the mould of good – and believable -- science. It consists of auxiliary hypothesis that are testable. It makes claims that lead to further research. It currently explains and fits available evidence. As most scientists believe, a theory’s task is to help solve both the empirical and conceptual problems that scientists encounter. Presently, Darwinian theory does just that. As far as claims of ‘scientificity’ go, evolutionary theory today rests on a long record of successes. An argument that will change the minds of those in the scientific community has yet to be offered by those favouring Intelligent Design or other anti-evolutionist perspectives.

Want to hear more about Evolution?

Click Here (Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Duration: 34mins 27sec (file size 5.91Mb and may be slow to download for dial-up users)

Ellie Pratt is a second year Science/Arts student at the University of New South Wales. She is majoring in History and Philosophy of Science as well as Microbiology and Immunology, and she is interested in doing research involving Antarctic ecosystems.

This article was originally written as an essay for the School of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of New South Wales.

Background Reading:

Ayer, A., J., Wittgenstein, Popper & the Vienna Circle, Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, London: Unwin, 1982, 108-141.

Bechtel, W., Post-Positivist Philosophy of Science, in Philosophy of Science, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988, 50-70.

Blackwell, R., Could There be Another Galileo Case? in P. Machamer ed., The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, 348-366.

Gillies, D., Is Metaphysics Meaningless? in Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century, Oxford: Blackwell, 153-188.

Gish, D., T., Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1985.

Gould, S., J., Evolution as Fact and Theory, Discover, May 1981. Reprinted in A. Montague ed. Science and Creationism, Oxford, 1984, 117-125.

Kelvin, Lord., Wave Theory of Light, Lecture Delivered Before The Academy Of Music, Philadelphia, Under The Auspices Of The Franklin Institute, 29 September, 1884, printed in the Journal of the Franklin Institute, November 1884, 118: 321-341. Accessed online http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/wave_theory_of_light.html on Friday, October 21, 2005.

Laudan, L., The Demise of the Demarcation Problem, Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, ed. R. S. Cohen and L. Laudan, Reidel: 1983, 111-27.

Morris, H., M., Scientific Creationism, San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1985.

Ruse, M., Can a Darwinian be a Christian?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Stockwell, J., Borel’s Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions, in the Talk. Origins Archive. Accessed online
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html on Friday, October 21, 2005.

CRICOS Provider Code: 00098G