Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

So many of the points made by Hawking could be used to justify Creationism, and yet it's waved off as 'impossible'. That is bad science.



It's not waved off as impossible, it's waved off as unprovable. For something to be scientific, it has to be possible to be disproven.

-----


A genuine question based on the requirement you gave for something to be scientific: how is Darwinian natural selection and the theory of macro (inter-species) evolution disprovable?

-----


If we were to observe that it does not happen in cases where we see it now?

Students can (and do) perform experiments on evolution+natural selection on bacteria in a lab in reasonable timeframes - put in bacteria, add feed, maybe add extra mutagens or radiation, and then observe the changes in bacteria when a stressor or a particular "poison" is added - the bacteria strain changes, evolving resistance. If one would see simply the strain suffering&not changing, then it would disprove Darwinian selection.

Inter-species evolution for larger organisms is more time-consuming to study (since many generations are needed), but the existing "ring-species" such as some bird groups are a good example - if inter-species evolution would be false, then we'd expect to see distinct species that can successfully interbreed within a species, but not between species; instead, we observe a "ring" where everyone is "the same" as their neighbour, but the opposite sides of the ring are "different species".

-----


If that's the case, then why all the science surrounding String Theory? It's been declared 'unprovable'.

-----




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: