[THOUGHT EXPERIMENT] One day, evolution is proven false: then what happens?

[Breathe]

Note: Thought experiment. I know it's impossible.​

Note: This thread isn't for proofs; I already accept evolution, and I think those who have any clue about what evolution teaches do, as well.

My question is about what would happen afterwards after something so well known, researched, and documented.

What this thread IS: a thought experiment of what would happen if something well known, documented, and proven would have if it was suddenly turned on its head.
What this thread IS NOT: denying evolution, a place to bash religions.​

So, we wake up exactly this day next month. It turns out over the last month, doubts were raised about the validity of evolution that was all hush hush, and now it has been disproven. Even the proofs of evolution have somehow been disproven. We can't believe it. Almost nobody can.

So, in this impossible world...​

What would this do to science?
How far would it throw back our knowledge, and what fields would be hit hardest?
What would happen to those who specialized in these fields?

Would people's trust in science take a knocking while the fundamentalists revel in it, and use it as evidence for creationism, or do the public understand and continue to trust people?

What would people use to try to understand our origins besides evolution? Because I can't think of anything credible; or would this just become a worthless question for most people because of a lack of convincing evidence without evolution?

Of course, we know it's impossible. Humour me. Any "that's impossible" or "evolution is a lie" means you haven't the OP and aren't worth a response by anyone.

Somehow, though, I see all this being all ignored and I expect something like "you're an idiot, disproving evolution is impossible" to crop up. That's why I repeated myself a lot, and used font styles, because people skim read.



I imagine people would go to alien creationism, and people's views on science and scientists would take a knocking for at least a decade. Otherwise, I have no idea.

Right, now let's see how this goes before someone doesn't read the opening. :cover:

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I am tired of people like you coming up with the most ridiculous, nonsensical arguments to save the failed god of creationism.

Evolution can't be disproven. Won't happen. And if it was superseded by another theory, that theory would be of a similar nature, not requiring a divine origin of speciation.

Your reading comprehension must be laughable if you still believe that evolution is subject to disproof. Hence, education = lack of belief in creationism.

Edit: Dammit, you just left chat as I posted this.

 

[Photonic]

I am tired of people like you coming up with the most ridiculous, nonsensical arguments to save the failed god of creationism.

Evolution can't be disproven. Won't happen. And if it was superseded by another theory, that theory would be of a similar nature, not requiring a divine origin of speciation.

Your reading comprehension must be laughable if you still believe that evolution is subject to disproof. Hence, education = lack of belief in creationism.

Edit: Dammit, you just left chat as I posted this.

So, is this a sarcastic knee jerk, or did you really not read what he said?

 

[Draka]

I think the main question would have to be what was found in order to disprove it? What evidence came out that proved it to be false? What caused the turn around? It would be that new evidence that would simply be pointing us in the new direction of where to look for answers. We've been going like that all along. We go where the evidence takes us. We accept evolution because all the evidence we have points us in that direction. It's only logical that we accept that it is the reasonable conclusion to make. If there is new evidence which comes out then we adjust accordingly, like we have done before, like we have always done. Sure, we'll have a "Holy crap, we had it all wrong" moment, but we'll keep going as society always has. Learning from our mistakes.

Unfortunately, I do think you might be right in that fundies would revel and rub their little hands with delight over such news. They would, of course, ignore whatever the new evidence might possibly be and could not contain their "I told you so's" and go right into "goddidits".

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Serious response:

I find this question difficult to think about because of its implausibility. I think the core of the thought experiment is this:

What would happen if a widely held "justified true belief" or even just belief (but a foundational one to society) were to collapse?

It's hard for me to get past the implausibility in even considering the scenario you outlined. It's kind of like asking "how would the world behave if pigs could fly?"

It's so implausible that my brain just automatically shuts off the ability to seriously entertain it in the imagination. But maybe that's just me...

Here's my shot at it:

Creationist groups would claim victory, there'd be a large flocking back to the churches and whatnot, fundamentalism would become a much more serious political force, science funding would be cut back and science would widely be held up as a god who failed, there will be a reactionary resurgence of interest in aristotle and classical western philosophy, but it will not necessarily be allied with science proper, scientists not aligned with the military-industrial-complex in bed, as usual, with the religious right, will be pushed out of employment or into low-skill fields like data entry - with corresponding pay, science at universities will become even more pragmatically oriented towards the needs of the status quo (read: MIC).

We'll see more wars in the Middle East, and it will take on more overt holy war elements on both sides.


Still, it's uncomfortable for me to even think about because it feels pointlessly implausible. What light can be shed on the real world with this thought experiment?

I'm sure you didn't ask it without practicality, but I don't really get it.

 

[Sunstone]

If evolution were falsified, then it would still be used as the most workable solution to the problem of biological diversity until something that better fit the facts came along. That's been the case with other theories. For instance, Newtonian physics was held onto despite being known to have problems until relativity came along.

 

[Breathe]

Still, it's uncomfortable for me to even think about because it feels pointlessly implausible. What light can be shed on the real world with this thought experiment?

I'm sure you didn't ask it without practicality, but I don't really get it.

How screwed we would be if over a hundred years of the most logical explanation was wrong and what would happen to society as it comes to grips with something which we've all known as true for so long due to its logic and knowledge. I chose evolution simply because it's something that some people argue against, despite all the evidence.

What got me thinking to this was a fundie, and reading K. Armstrong's "A History of God" regarding... Copernicus, I think; about how people were just expected to accept the view of some guy, when what he said flew in the face of what everyone knew at the time.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

How screwed we would be if over a hundred years of the most logical explanation was wrong and what would happen to society as it comes to grips with something which we've all known as true for so long due to its logic and knowledge. I chose evolution simply because it's something that some people argue against, despite all the evidence.

What got me thinking to this was a fundie, and reading K. Armstrong's "A History of God" regarding... Copernicus, I think; about how people were just expected to accept the view of some guy, when what he said flew in the face of what everyone knew at the time.

Do you foresee society coming to grips with the obsolescence of widely held, foundational belief? I do, but i think this will be very different in character than something like evolution - with very different consequences.

 

[crossfire]

I think the main question would have to be what was found in order to disprove it? What evidence came out that proved it to be false? What caused the turn around?

A theory has to be falsifiable in order to be considered scientific.

If it was found that mutations that alter biochemical, behavioral, or physiological characteristics do not carry down through the generations, then the idea of evolution being driven by natural selection would fall apart.

It would be that new evidence that would simply be pointing us in the new direction of where to look for answers. We've been going like that all along. We go where the evidence takes us.

Yep.

 

[Iti oj]

I would take all the evidence we have and seek a new way to explain it.

 

[crossfire]

I would take all the evidence we have and seek a new way to explain it.

Indeed. The very definition of falsifiable scientific theory means that you can't cling to it--you must be willing to let it go if it has been falsified and keep searching. Science can't ever "rest on its laurels" and expect to remain scientific.

 

[nazz]

The same thing that happens anytime any scientific theory is falsified. It's modified or replaced with another theory. That's how science works.

 

[crossfire]

The same thing that happens anytime any scientific theory is falsified. It's modified or replaced with another theory. That's how science works.

I'm surprised at how uncomfortable the necessary paradigm shifting can be for some people.

 

[nazz]

I'm surprised at how uncomfortable the necessary paradigm shifting can be for some people.

It's a human trait to resist changes in thinking.

 

[crossfire]

It's a human trait to resist changes in thinking.

It's a wonder we have made it as far as we have.

 

[Iti oj]

Indeed. The very definition of falsifiable scientific theory means that you can't cling to it--you must be willing to let it go if it has been falsified and keep searching. Science can't ever "rest on its laurels" and expect to remain scientific.

That's why science is so amazing.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm surprised at how uncomfortable the necessary paradigm shifting can be for some people.

I think it's a mark of emotional maturity when we can accept the pain of being wrong.

 

[Skwim]

Okay, I'll, bite.

So, in this impossible world . . .
What would this do to science?

It would be a significant setback for science because of the vociferous defense it has put up for evolution. In the future I believe people would be suspicious of a lot of claims that science makes.

How far would it throw back our knowledge, and what fields would be hit hardest?

It would depend on the nature of evidence.

What would happen to those who specialized in these fields?

It would depened on the nature of evidence, and where the misinterpretation took place.

Would people's trust in science take a knocking while the fundamentalists revel in it, and use it as evidence for creationism, or do the public understand and continue to trust people?

As I said, science would take a hard knock, and, of course, the fundamentalists would revel in it. But whether or not they would benefit from the incident depends on what the new evidence consisted of.

What would people use to try to understand our origins besides evolution? Because I can't think of anything credible;

The new evidence or their creationist faith.

 

[crossfire]

Are we after victory, or truth? That is what this thought experiment is all about.

 

[camanintx]

So, we wake up exactly this day next month. It turns out over the last month, doubts were raised about the validity of evolution that was all hush hush, and now it has been disproven. Even the proofs of evolution have somehow been disproven. We can't believe it. Almost nobody can.

So, in this impossible world...
​

What would this do to science?

How could we ever trust paternity tests again? Think of all the child support and custody cases that would be thrown into question. Forget whether or not we are related to other apes, would I even know who my parents were?