Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[lunakilo]

Not really. Fossils aren't even particularly important as evidence of evolution at this point in time. The evidence has mounted quite a lot along time, and assumed a great variety of forms, some of them a bit esoteric.

But is is not a vote!

I doesn't matter how much data you have that supports your model if you also have data that does not. If you have data that does not support the model, then the model is wrong.

 

[doppelganger]

But is is not a vote!

I doesn't matter how much data you have that supports your model if you also have data that does not. If you have data that does not support the model, then the model is wrong.

Not "wrong" . . . no. Until a better model comes along that fills in those holes, we say scientifically that it is the best model of those we have yet come up with.

In other words, of the options we have suggested, it is the most probable given its ability to yield useful information.

Scientific theories are never "right" or "wrong." They are more or less useful.

 

[LuisDantas]

evolutionists are very defensive in their claims and most of them just want to cancel the existence of God,

Really? Can you give a few examples?

It seems to me that such people are rare or even non-existent.

 

[Panda]

Not "wrong" . . . no. Until a better model comes along that fills in those holes, we say scientifically that it is the best model of those we have yet come up with.

In other words, of the options we have suggested, it is the most probable given its ability to yield useful information.

Scientific theories are never "right" or "wrong." They are more or less useful.

That is something a lot of people don't understand I think.

 

[waitasec]

I have participated in a number of threads on creation and evolution. One thing that I have noticed is that antievolutionists, such as rusra02, have argued that there is no evidence for evolution. So I want to ask rusra02 something: suppose evolution was completely refuted. Suppose it was totally refuted and you got what you wanted. Suppose that everyone on this forum, including myself, finally was forced to conclude that evolution was not true due to the sheer weight of scientific evidence against it. Let's suppose that the case was so overwhelming as to make it impossible to deny that evolution was false.

Then what? What would Rusra02 like to see happen? Seriously. Even if it would never likely happen, what would Rusra02 like or hope would happen? Convert to creationism? Become Christians? At least declare agnosticism? Suppose that all of this talk about "propaganda" and other such conspiracy-talk was completely true, the facts all true and verifiable, and proven true to the extent that it was impossible to deny. What then?

maybe... but then he would have to answer questions in regards to gods deliberate attempt of keeping his creation ignorant of their actions...

 

[tarekabdo12]

I have participated in a number of threads on creation and evolution. One thing that I have noticed is that antievolutionists, such as rusra02, have argued that there is no evidence for evolution. So I want to ask rusra02 something: suppose evolution was completely refuted. Suppose it was totally refuted and you got what you wanted. Suppose that everyone on this forum, including myself, finally was forced to conclude that evolution was not true due to the sheer weight of scientific evidence against it. Let's suppose that the case was so overwhelming as to make it impossible to deny that evolution was false.

Then what? What would Rusra02 like to see happen? Seriously. Even if it would never likely happen, what would Rusra02 like or hope would happen? Convert to creationism? Become Christians? At least declare agnosticism? Suppose that all of this talk about "propaganda" and other such conspiracy-talk was completely true, the facts all true and verifiable, and proven true to the extent that it was impossible to deny. What then?

I originally don't think that evolution contradicts religion, however, arguing about evolution is a matter of contradicting opinions regarding a scientific debate. So,it's not a war, it's rather a discussion and everyone has the chance to show his view and give evidence to strengthen it. That's all.

 

[painted wolf]

It would be a very interesting time to be a scientist... everything would have to started over from "the enlightenment". Which is a bummer because it seems to be working pretty well so far.

Let's not forget that the creationism that rus. proposes isn't just against biology but every branch of science from geology to physics to modern medicine.

wa:do

 

[Krok]

ideally this will raise new questions to ask to explain the origin of life.

No, you're confusing the Theory of Evolution and the origin of life (abiogenesis). The Theory of Evolution doesn't even adress the origin of life. It explains existing life. It doesn't matter how life originated, it won't affect the Theory of Evolution.

 

[fantome profane]

I disagree.

All it would take to refute evolution would be a bunch of fossils in the 'wrong' layers, or something like that.

If fossils like that were found and couldn't be explained away the theory of evolution would be in trouble, but no better theory would magically spring into existence because of this.

Well yes you are right, I agree with you. But the point is that at this point we have studied the fossil record enough to know that this is not going to happen. We can philosophize all we want about falsification, but the point is that evolution is not going to be refuted by a Precambrian bunny because they are not going to find a Precambrian bunny. To refute the theory of evolution you need a theory that can explain the evidence we have.

 

[lunakilo]

Not "wrong" . . . no. Until a better model comes along that fills in those holes, we say scientifically that it is the best model of those we have yet come up with.

In other words, of the options we have suggested, it is the most probable given its ability to yield useful information.

Scientific theories are never "right" or "wrong." They are more or less useful.

Ok, that is technically correct.
But there is a point at which a theory becomes ridiculous.
If precambrian bunnies were found the theory of evlolution would loose credibility as this goes against some very fundamental assumptions in it.

Well yes you are right, I agree with you. But the point is that at this point we have studied the fossil record enough to know that this is not going to happen. We can philosophize all we want about falsification, but the point is that evolution is not going to be refuted by a Precambrian bunny because they are not going to find a Precambrian bunny. To refute the theory of evolution you need a theory that can explain the evidence we have.

Maybe that was your point

My point was that the statement...

If evolution were refuted there would be another theory that explains the same evidence as well or better. Because that is what it would take to refute evolution.

...doesn't make sense (to me).
It does not take a better theory to refute the theory of evolution, it takes evidence that the theory is wrong to refute it.

And you are correct that if such evidence was found people would try to come up with a new theory which can also explain this data, but it is not this new theory which refutes the old, it is the new evidence which does.

 

[LuisDantas]

It does not take a better theory to refute the theory of evolution, it takes evidence that the theory is wrong to refute it.

Trouble is, at this point that would be as surprising as if, say, weighting scales just stopped working or the primary colors suddenly changed.

Not technically impossible, but unlikely to such an extreme that I guess it would indeed be evidence of supernatural intervention if it ever happened.

 

[lunakilo]

Trouble is, at this point that would be as surprising as if, say, weighting scales just stopped working or the primary colors suddenly changed.

Not technically impossible, but unlikely to such an extreme that I guess it would indeed be evidence of supernatural intervention if it ever happened.

Maybe so, but the title of this thread is "Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?"

 

[fantome profane]

And you are correct that if such evidence was found people would try to come up with a new theory which can also explain this data, but it is not this new theory which refutes the old, it is the new evidence which does.

Newton’s laws of motion were successfully refuted by Einstein. But the planets didn’t fall out of the sky, water didn’t start running uphill, rocks didn’t suddenly start moving about on their own volition. Einstein simply had a better theory to explain the evidence we had.

 

[doppelganger]

There are two things about the OP that are just mistaken. First, the presumption that scientific theories can be "refuted", which as I noted, they aren't. They are replaced with theories that better fit the information we have and how we are using it. Second, implicit is the idea that the only alternative to the theory of evolution to explain diversity of species is "Creationism" or ID. However, those are simply not scientific explanations and do not attempt to provide a predictable explanatory mechanism based on observation. Thus, they would never be the theory that replaces evolution if by some freakish chance the mountains of evidence that support it were to somehow spontaneously crumble and a new theory had to be developed.

BTW, we know for a fact that the basic models we use for energy and matter are probably deeply flawed and incomplete. We can't even account for most of the mass in the universe and we haven't the foggiest idea what gravity really is yet. Nevertheless, all of our models for physics and chemistry are still quite useful for what we are doing with them despite that we know they are at best incomplete and possibly quite mistaken.

 

[painted wolf]

Newton’s laws of motion were successfully refuted by Einstein. But the planets didn’t fall out of the sky, water didn’t start running uphill, rocks didn’t suddenly start moving about on their own volition. Einstein simply had a better theory to explain the evidence we had.

No... Einstein just added to Newton. Newtonian physics is still perfectly valid and widely used.

Like Dopp says, you don't refute a scientific theory, you replace it with a better model. You refute arguments and bits of evidence... but that doesn't refute a whole working model.

wa:do

 

[johnhanks]

There are two things about the OP that are just mistaken. First, the presumption that scientific theories can be "refuted", which as I noted, they aren't...

Depends how far back you look, I think. The phlogiston theory was pretty thoroughly refuted, as was the existence of luminiferous ether. Scientific revolutions aren't always a matter of adding to or refining the existing paradigm: sometimes the old idea just has to go.

 

[doppelganger]

Depends how far back you look, I think. The phlogiston theory was pretty thoroughly refuted, as was the existence of luminiferous ether. Scientific revolutions aren't always a matter of adding to or refining the existing paradigm: sometimes the old idea just has to go.

But they still aren't refuted. Either the purposes to which we are putting them changes or we hit a flashpoint where a new insight makes them obsolete compared to a better alternative for accomplishing the same purpose. Such is the case with both of your examples. At their respective times, they were fine for their purposes until something better came along. That doesn't mean they were "refuted" (nor that they were ever "true" or "right" to begin with).

Just useful relative to other models (or not).

 

[painted wolf]

Depends how far back you look, I think. The phlogiston theory was pretty thoroughly refuted, as was the existence of luminiferous ether. Scientific revolutions aren't always a matter of adding to or refining the existing paradigm: sometimes the old idea just has to go.

Phlogiston as a theory wasn't refuted... it was replaced with Oxidation.

Specific claims of the Phlogiston theory were refuted (ie. some things gain weight when they "loose" phlogiston when they should loose weight).

But Phlogiston wouldn't have been replaced as a theory had there not have been a better model to adopt in it's place.

Same with luminiferous ether which was displaced by special relativity and quantum mechanics.

For evolution to be replaced, creationism needs a functional model not a bunch of snappy arguments.

wa:do

 

[Panda]

No... Einstein just added to Newton. Newtonian physics is still perfectly valid and widely used.

Like Dopp says, you don't refute a scientific theory, you replace it with a better model. You refute arguments and bits of evidence... but that doesn't refute a whole working model.

wa:do

I think just arguing over definitions. Newtons model (and much of classic mechanics) is wrong, but it is still useful as a simplification on general and special relativity at the levels of speed and mass we use in everyday life. The same think may very well happen (and is probably likely to happen) to general and special relativity.

 

[Panda]

Actually I think the problem here may be people view science as being either right and wrong. Where as many scientists take the useful or not useful approach. A model can be "wrong" but useful because what it omits have no real effect on the outcome.