View
all articles
On the Falsifiability of Creationism and/or ID Theory
Though it is common to argue that creationism and Intelligent Design theory are non-falsifiable positions, this argument is mutually destructive for Darwinism.
A Parable and a Plea
An evolutionist and a creationist log on to TrueU.org. They read a sentence like "Darwin is known for his theory of evolution." Without a modicum of interest in the author's actual point, they stereotype him and jump to the conclusion that the sentence must be part of an argument against Darwinian evolution — Why else would a TrueU author mention Darwin? they ask themselves rhetorically.
The evolutionist and the creationist then e-mail the editors of TrueU.
The evolutionist triumphantly exclaims that the author hasn't disproved evolution; then he posts a comment in the TrueU Coffee Shop calling the author irrational, ignorant, bigoted or, worst of all, a fundamentalist.
The creationist, on the other hand, triumphantly thanks the editors for putting another nail in Darwin's coffin. Then he posts a comment in the Coffee Shop calling evolutionists irrational, ignorant, bigoted or, worst of all, liberals.
All the while, the author only meant what he said — that Darwin is known for his theory of evolution.
In this article, I will use words like "Darwin," "evolution," "creationism" and "design." These words evoke stronger emotions than most profanities, and strong emotions often give birth to knee-jerk reactions. So, let me state explicitly that I won't be criticizing Darwin himself, or evolutionary theory itself. Rather, the point of this article is to criticize a misguided argument Darwinian evolutionists often level against creationists and Intelligent Design (ID) theorists — namely, that creationism and ID theory are non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific.1 This is a criticism both thoughtful evolutionists and wary creationists/ID theorists can be grateful for, for it will save evolutionists from the embarrassment of forwarding a self-destructive argument, and save creationists and ID theorists the time they would otherwise have to waste responding to it.2
So, please don't bother the editors with e-mails (or Coffee Shop posts) announcing that the following argument doesn't refute evolutionary theory or, conversely, that it does.3
The Strongest Man in America
Before I criticize the claim that creationism and ID theory are non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific, let me lay out the logical backdrop of my criticism.
Think back to television in the mid-90s. Think about southern California, high school, palm trees and rich kids. Think about your favorite zip code while savoring the following assertions:
(1) Jason Priestly is the strongest man in America
and
(2) Luke Perry is the strongest man in America.
Assertions (1) and (2) (and the images that accompany them) are deeply inspiring. They're important to this article for other reasons, however. Since only one person can be the strongest man in America, and since Jason Priestly and Luke Perry are different people, (1) and (2) can't both be true at the same time. Thus, if (1) is true, then (2) is false, and vice versa.4
Now, suppose we know that (1) is true. Suppose that, back in '92, Men's Health conducted an official test requiring every American male to bench-press John Candy; and suppose Jason Priestly was able to bench him more times than any other guy in America.
Also, suppose Men's Health published the winner's name, but didn't publish any information on any other American male. In this case, we know that (1) is true. And since we know that (1) is true, we also know that (2) is false. Even though we weren't told a thing about Luke Perry, we can be certain that he's not the strongest man in America, for the fact that he's not follows logically from the fact that Priestly is. The truth of (1) logically rules out the truth of (2).
Suppose, alternatively, that we have good reason to believe that (2) is true. We don't know for sure, but strong evidence points in this direction. Suppose, for example, that instead of requiring every American male to participate, the test conducted in '92 required only males vacationing in Wisconsin to bench-press John Candy. Suppose Luke Perry was shopping in Wauwatosa at the time, and, between stores, destroyed the competition by doing 1,300 reps of John Candy with one hand. Again, Men's Health publishes only the winner's name. 
In this case, however, while we know that Perry is the strongest man in Wisconsin, we can't be absolutely certain that he's the strongest man in America. It's possible that somebody in Oklahoma is stronger.
Nevertheless, Perry's bench-pressing accomplishment is so extraordinary that it's extremely unlikely that anybody is stronger, and this gives us strong evidence for the truth of (2). Moreover, since (2) is only true if (1) is false, Perry's bench-pressing accomplishment gives us equally strong evidence for the falsehood of (1).
So, here's the point of this section: Given any two assertions (or beliefs, or theories) A and B, if A and B can't both be true at the same time, then the degree to which we have evidence for A is also the degree to which we have evidence against B. And, of course, this is true vice versa — the degree to which we have evidence for B is the degree to which we have evidence against A.
Conspiracy Theories
Now consider the classic conspiracy theory:
(3) Top-secret government agents are out to get me, but I can't prove it because they've covered their tracks. In fact, they've covered their tracks so well that all the evidence suggests that they're not out to get me.
Also, note that (3) is logically incompatible with
(4) No top-secret government agents are out to get me.
If (3) is true, then (4) is false, and vice versa. Moreover, just like (1) and (2), the degree to which we have evidence for (3) is also the degree to which we have evidence against (4). Conversely, the degree to which we have evidence for (4) is the degree to which we have evidence against (3).
Assertions (1) and (2), and (3) and (4) have this logical relationship in common. There's an important difference between (1)-(2) and (3)-(4), however. Suppose I believe Jason Priestly is the strongest man in America, and you disagree with me because you witnessed the contest and saw Luke Perry win. In this case, it wouldn't be hard for you to prove that I'm wrong. All you'd have to do is produce the official results.
But imagine that I believe (3). Imagine that I believe top-secret agents really are out to get me, and imagine that I believe they're covering their tracks so well that there's absolutely no evidence of their activity. How could you prove that (3) is false?
If (3) is false, then all of the evidence will suggest that top-secret agents aren't out to get me. But according to (3), top-secret agents have manipulated the evidence to suggest that they aren't out to get me. Thus, if (3) is true, all of the evidence will suggest that top-secret agents aren't out to get me. So, the exact same things that would count as evidence against the truth of (3) would also count as evidence for the truth of (3).
Suppose all the evidence suggests that the supposed agents are actually my friends. Would this disprove (3)? Not at all, for it's exactly the sort of thing (3) predicts. The apparent friendliness of agents who have perfected the art of appearing to be friendly fits perfectly with the theory that the agents aren't, in fact, my friends.
Or suppose all the evidence suggests that the agents don't even exist — that there are no government agents, much less government agents that are out to get me. Would this disprove (3)? Again, no, for it's exactly the sort of thing (3) predicts. The apparent non-existence of agents that have perfected the art of appearing not to exist fits perfectly well with the theory that they do, in fact, exist.
You get the picture. No matter what objection one raises, (3) contains resources for answering it. Thus, there's no way to refute it, no way to prove that (3) is false.
Karl Popper and Falsification
Back to the claim that creationism and ID theory are non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific — what does this claim amount to?
In Conjectures and Refutations, Viennese philosopher of science Karl Popper argued that a theory isn't genuinely scientific unless there is at least one conceivable datum that would prove it false. As he put it, "A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific."5 According to this criterion, (3) is obviously not scientific.
Nowadays, many philosophers, historians and sociologists of science argue that the scientific paradigms in which scientists actually work are, in practice, non-falsifiable.6 And if this is true, while Popper's falsification criterion might describe science in an ideal world, it would fail to describe the way science is actually practiced. Nevertheless, scientists sometimes trot out Popper's falsifiability criterion to criticize competing theories they haven't been able to disprove. In such cases, they don't argue that the competing theory is false; they argue that it's non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific.
Creationism and ID Theory are Non-falsifiable
Having said all of that, we're finally ready to address the argument I mentioned above.
Darwinian evolutionists sometimes resort to the two-part claim that Popper was right — that a non-falsifiable theory isn't genuinely scientific — and that creationism and ID theory are non-falsifiable. Thus, their argument goes, even if creationism/ID theory were true, it would have no place in a science classroom or textbook.
Judge John Jones argued this exact position in favor of his recent ruling that ID theory in the science classroom violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.7
Calling creationism and ID theory non-scientific because they're both non-falsifiable is an interesting move, but, contrary to the intentions of anyone who would forward such a position, it ultimately serves to undermine the scientific status of Darwinian evolution.
Why, after all, do Darwinian evolutionists and creationists/ID theorists debate each other? The answer is obvious. Like (1) and (2), Darwinian evolution and creationism/ID theory are logically incompatible. If Darwinian evolution is true, then creationism/ID theory is false, and vice versa.
But this means that the degree to which we have evidence for one of these theories is the degree to which we have evidence against the other. If we have strong evidence for Darwinian evolution, for example, then we have strong evidence against creationism/ID theory. And if we have enough evidence to prove Darwinian evolution, then we have enough evidence to refutecreationism/ID theory.
But now consider the claim that creationism/ID theory can't be falsified. If it's true, then no conceivable fact or event could count as evidence against creationism/ID theory. But any fact that counts as evidence for Darwinian evolution counts as evidence against creationism/ID theory. Thus, if it's impossible to falsify creationism/ID theory, it's impossible to verify Darwinian evolution.
The claim that creationism/ID theory can't be falsified is certainly debatable. But within the context of the origins debate — especially as it bears on the teaching of different origins theories in the classroom — the claim that creationism/ID theory can't be falsified is one creationists/ID theorists might happily concede, because it can only be true if Darwinian evolution can't be verified. And if Darwinian evolution can't be verified, in what sense is it scientific? More to the point, if it can't be verified, why think it's even true?
Is Darwinian Evolution Falsifiable?
So, the claim that creationism/ID theory can't be falsified doesn't serve the evolutionist very well. To be perfectly fair, however, we should note that some creationists and ID theorists sometimes argue that Darwinian evolution can't be falsified. And this line of argument poses the same problem for them as it poses for those who argue that creationism/ID theory can't be falsified.
If Darwinian evolution is non-falsifiable, then, to that extent, creationism/ID theory is non-verifiable. To say that creationism/ID theory is non-verifiable, however, is to say that there is no objective sense in which the world and the creatures that fill it bear the stamp of God. Thus, the extent to which Darwinian evolution can't be falsified is the extent to which there's no objective sense in which the world and the creatures that fill it don't bear the stamp of God. This, however, is not a position anyone in the creationist/ID theorist camp could be very comfortable with.
C O F F E E S H O PWhat do you think could falsify Darwinism or creationism/ID?
Join the discussion!
The arguments of Judge John Jones and others on both sides of the debate bear a certain resemblance to suicide bombings. If successful, they destroy their opponents' positions, but only at the cost of destroying their own positions with them.8
- See, for example, Judge John Jones' December 2005 conclusions about ID theory in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District as described by Alvin Plantinga in his article, "Whether ID is Science isn't Semantics" (Science & Theology News, 7 March 2006). See also section I of Harold Morowitz, Robert Hazen and James Trefil's "Intelligent Design Has No Place in the Science Curriculum" (The Chronicle Review, 2 September 2005). Back^
- This sentence is a bit misleading. While ID theory rejects the claim that purely natural processes can account for life on earth, ID theory takes no position on the claim that the organisms that populate the earth have all descended from a common ancestor. Yet one who believes that these organisms have all descended from a common ancestor is, in an important sense, an evolutionist. Thus, it's possible to be an ID theorist and an evolutionist. What's not possible is to be an ID theorist and a Darwinian evolutionist, since Darwinian evolution involves the claim that purely natural processes can account for life on earth. Just so you know, for the sake of readability, I'll occasionally use "evolution" as shorthand for "Darwinian evolution." Back^
- And while we're on the subject, please note that, to date, I haven't criticized Darwin or evolutionary theory in any TrueU article. "Doing What's Natural" was aimed at professing Darwinian evolutionists who don't understand the very theory they profess. Darwin himself would have approved of this criticism. In "Darwin and the Difference Between Nikes and Reeboks," I used a pair of sneakers to show that one's acceptance or rejection of Darwinism is not a trivial matter. Again, Darwin himself would have approved. When I do get around to criticizing Darwinian evolution — and I'm definitely a critic — I'll make sure to let everybody know. Back^
- To be a bit more specific, (1) and (2) can't both be true at the same time. There's no contradiction at all in saying that (1) and (2) were both true at differenttimes. Back^
- Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutation: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Routledge, 1963). See, specifically, point 4 in Section I. Back^
- Thomas Kuhn is perhaps the best-known example. See his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1962), chapter VI. For further reading on the subject, see sections 2 and 3 of Imre Lakatos' "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research," in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge University Press, 1970), Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave Eds, and Helen Longino's Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Science (Princeton University Press, 1990). Back^
- In case you're wondering why the scientific status of Darwinian evolution is even important, see J.P. Moreland's article, "What is Scientific Naturalism?" for a look at the cultural baggage that comes with the label "scientific." Back^
- Again, run a Google search on the exact phrase: "Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District" or view the exact text on Wikisource. Back^
Blake Roeber is a graduate student in philosophy at Northern Illinois University, but not for long. After completing his MA in the spring of '08, he'll start a PhD in philosophy at Rutgers.
Back to top
