I want to expand a bit on Gates’ post about Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. As he correctly points out, a scientific theory has a specific meaning. A scientific theory is something that is accepted by the scientific community made up of scholars who are dedicated to peer-review of papers and studies in order to reach a consensus. Similarly, a theory must also make predictions that are falsifiable either by observation or experiment. Obviously experimental sciences are laboratory sciences, such as chemistry, where theories are tested by direct experimentation. Observational sciences such, as astronomy, rely on observation of phenomena in order to test theories on the nature of the phenomena. It is often claimed that evolution by natural selection is not a valid theory because it is not reproducible in the lab. Clearly evolutionary biology is an observational science, based on observations in the field and in the fossil record, predictions of natural selection can be verified.
Yet, we have to ask why exactly evolution by natural selection is so completely vilified to the point that its credibility as science is challenged. As far as scientific theories go, evolution by natural selection is one of the most robust, well-supported theories in existance. Strictly speaking in scientific terms, evolution itself is a fact. The fossil record confirms the emergence of new species just as we observe bacterial evolution in action. Debating whether evolution itself occurs is like debating whether rain exists or not. The “debate” is in the mechanism behind such evolution. The scientifically accepted mechanism natural selection in punctuated equilibrium, as developed by Eldredge and Gould, makes consistent predictions that are routinely verified by observation in the fossil record. In short, evolution is a fact and the mechanism explaining that fact is one of the most complete and well-tested theories in science today.
So why natural selection? Why not one of the more exotic theories in science today? Quantum theory makes absolutely counterintuitive predictions as a matter of fact. The phenomenon of quantum tunneling allows particles to briefly aquire a negative kinetic energy and pass through a barrier that it does not have the energy to pass through–like walking through a wall with no damage to you or the wall. Quantum mechanics also predicts that under certain circumstances, a group atoms with a certain characteristic (integer spin) can “collapse” into a single location and actually all sit in the same physical place at once. Certainly counterintuitive and mind-boggling, yet both phenomena have been experimentally verified. Gravity is one of the biggest mysteries in science. Of the four fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetic, weak, strong) gravity is orders of magnitude smaller. Why? The other forces all have had their carrier particles discovered. The force carrier particle of gravity, the graviton, has been postulated, yet never discovered. General relativity predicts that gravity is the result of a curvature in space-time, yet such a prediction is certainly incomplete. Still gravity as a theory is never challenged; the simplistic Newtonian gravitational theory is still taught routinely in high schools despite having significant flaws (such as the fact it is completely at odds with relativity). One of the more cutting-edge theories, superstring theory, has been called a theory from centuries ahead that happened to fall into this century. The theory is so far advanced that we barely have the math to fully expand and understand its power–it’d be like giving a modern supercomputer to 1850s scientists; they may have a general idea of its power, but little clue how to truly harness it. Despite making significant predictions, such as the existance of supermassive particles as a residual from the big bang, none have been experimentally verified. Yet, the scientific community is not under fire for making such predictions.
Evolution by natural selection is challenged simply because it makes some assumptions we, as a people, do not want to hear. Humans always want to see themselves as something special on this earth–either created in God’s image or on earth to be the most powerful species by design. Yet, natural selection tells us that we are little more than a species lucky enough to evolve the power to think at the level we do. Given the rules of natural selection, it is no surprise that intelligence is a highly powerful trait. Our existance is not a surprise, it may even be LIKELY that a highly intelligent species would come to dominate. Yet, such predictions still only go as far as to say that we are only the product of the system–a product of the rules. We have no greater roots to exist than the rules that produced us. That is the hardest part to swallow for most people; the thought that we are not special. Some of the wildest theories in science, for instance that our universe is actually a 3-dimensional “membrane” floating in a 10-dimensional multiverse, make predictions have have not been fully tested. It is truly depressing that one of the most robustly evaluated theories of science instead meets the ire of those who see themselves as something more special than the product of a specific set of rules.
