The Problem with Falsification

In the following pages it is my intention to evaluate one objection that

creationists have to the theory of evolution’s status as legitimate science. The

objection that I have decided to consider is that the theory cannot be falsified.

Unfortunately for the creationists, this objection is based on a misunderstanding

of the way science works. I will explain why this objection does not strike

evolution down from status as a science. I will also discuss reasons why, in light

of this objection, creationism cannot replace evolution as a scientific theory.

By objecting to the scientific status of evolution by saying that the theory

cannot be falsified, the Creationist camp reduces itself to the level of naïve

falsification. Philosophers of science discovered long ago that no scientific

theory could be conclusively falsified. The form of logic, Modus Tolens, shows

us that it is logically possible to falsify any claim. Unfortunately, when working in

the reality of scientific explanation, we find that though falsification of a claim

might be logically possible, it is factually impossible.

This is exemplified with the Edington experiment, a crucial test that was

meant to falsify either Newton’s or Einstein’s theory. In this experiment, a group

of scientist went to Australia to observe the apparent position of a star during a

solar eclipse. Einstein’s theory predicted that the star would appear not to be in

its normal position due to the sun’s gravitational field bending the light from the

star. Newton predicted that the star would be where it normally is. The star was

in the position that Einstein predicted so Newton’s theory should have been

falsified. The problem is that in doing this, or any experiment, there are a large
number of other hypotheses that are assumed to be true but can also be

questioned. Accuracy of the instrumentation is certainly one hypothetical factor

that would invalidate the results of the experiment, if the instruments were found

to be inaccurate. A second assumption that was made is that the sun’s corona

is not dense enough to bend the star light. No one had yet measured the density

of the corona so the Newtonians were able to say that their theory had not been

falsified.

This example demonstrates the problem with naïve falsification. When

one attempts to falsify a hypothesis with a crucial test, the hypothesis takes

many other hypotheses, or auxiliary assumptions, with it into the test. As Philip

Kitcher would say, hypotheses are tested in bundles. Whenever a crucial test is

performed, supporters of the theory which failed the test can say that one of the

other hypotheses in the bundle was falsified instead; just as the Newtonians said

that the hypothesis that the sun’s corona would not refract starlight had been

falsified instead of Newtonian mechanics.

Since one of the auxiliary hypotheses in a crucial test can always be

falsified in substitution for the main hypothesis, no hypothesis can be fully

falsified. Further, it is unfortunate for the naïve falsificationists among the

Creationists that no crucial test has yet be devised between Creationism and

Evolution and it appears that due to the tenants of creationism, no test will ever

be devised. Both evolution and creationism were devised more to explain rather

than predict. Evolution makes few predictions while creationism holds that God

made things at the beginning as they are today. Upon the discovery of an orchid
whose flower cup was so deep that no known (at the time) species of bird had a

beak long enough to drink the nectar, evolutionary theory predicted that such an

incredible bird does exist. This bird was eventually discovered, demonstrating

evidence for the validity of evolution. No crucial test could have be devised from

this prediction because creationists believe that God made the unusual bird and

the strange flower together because it wanted the orchid and bird to exist. No

counter predictions could be made in this case using creationism.

The statement; due to hypotheses being tested in bundles a hypothesis

cannot be factually falsified, leaves scientists in a bind because it now becomes

harder to decide when to believe one theory over another. Popperian

falsification says that auxilliary hypotheses should be thrown out if they are ad

hoc or too ridiculous to be held accountable for the failure of the test. The

problem with this account is deciding which auxiliaries are ad hoc. Kitcher

attempts to solve this problem by demanding that every auxiliary hypothesis be

independently testable. After the Edington experiment the density of the sun’s

corona was measured independently to determine if that was the reason for the

result of the star appearing out of position. If anyone was to ever devise a

crucial test between creationism and evolution, this criterion would be used to

confirm one theory over the other but neither theory could be conclusively

falsified.

The Creationist objection to the scientific status of evolution on the

grounds of not being able to be falsify it, is not valid since no scientific theory can

be falsified conclusively. Further, no crucial test has yet been devised which
could result in one belief becoming accepted over the other through testing

auxilliary hypotheses independently.