If evolution is proven wrong, doesn't that automatically make it a science?

Question

Hmm...I should clarify. The point of science (in layman's terms) is that one can test a theory, and hopefully, eventually prove it correct or incorrect. Some people claim that evolution isn't a science. Therefore, if by some fluke, someone can disprove evolution, wouldn't that make it scientific?

heh...sorry for the misunderstanding. my questions tend to get a little disjointed when I don't use the "add more details" box when I should.

Answer 1

Well, falsifiability is the key to any good theory, and I think that's what you're talking about. It doesn't mean that you have to actually find something that proves it wrong, but there has to be the possibility that something could exist which would falsify the theory. Meaning, the theory has to be able to be proven wrong, whether it ever is or not.

There is some debate, however, whether evolution is a theory or a research program made up of several smaller theories.

Answer 2

Being disproven won't make it science. Having the ability to be proven wrong makes it science. All scientific ideas must be justified through the use of experiments. Experiments have been done for evolution. Drosophilia (fruit flies) were observed for a length of time. After many (short) generations had passed, the baby flies grew even bigger and lived longer than their ancestors. Had the flies lived shorter lives after this time, evolution would seem less likely.

Creationism, on the other hand, is not what I'd consider to be science. We can't experiment based on God's will (assuming the will is constant), especially since the experiment must be repeatable. We have never observed anything to indicate that God created humans in a day. (Some may think that the Bible is scientific evidence, but from a scientific viewpoint, it's just a book that has yet to be verified.)
Personally, I think another reason creationism isn't scientific is that it's not open to change. Scientific theories and hypotheses are constantly edited once new data is found. Creationism isn't open to such corrections. Science is about asking questions and finding answers. Creationism is about having a possible explanation without questioning or verifying it.

While I'm still rambling, just because something is proven wrong does not mean that it is not science. Spontaneous generation has been tested in our atmosphere. Obviously the data showed that the idea of spontaneous generation was incorrect. However, the idea that organisms aren't created the way we thought is a theory in and of itself. This kind of theory would read: "Spontaneous generation cannot occur in the conditions we have on Earth." Disproving something can be just as valuable as proving it.

Answer 3

I think the point of the question was how creationism is just a religious idea with lots of room for special pleading, and thus it isn't science. Still...


I think the whole bit about proving thrings wrong gets blown a little out of proportion in the press. There was an editorial about that in a recen tissue of Nature.

Basically, scientists are always tentative and open to new ideas, but those ideas that are well established become so because they get all the useless parts shaved off by countless experiments and observations. Evolution has been observed. It's not going to be disproved.

Remember, "evolution" can refer both to the *fact* of evolution and to the *theory* of evolution. The fact is the fact that it happened. The theory is the model for how.

When new theories come about, they usually don't trash old theories. Rather, they improve on them and explain things at the extremes of the old theory. For instance, classical physics made wrong predictions about blackbody radiation (the "ultraviolet catastrophie") and the photoelectric effect. Planck and Einstein showed a way to account for those, and thus quantum mechanics was born. That didn't mean anyone had to throw out classical physics. It just meant there was something new for use in new, extreme cases.

Evolution has been independently verified over and over. The fact of evolution has been observed, even up to speciation. The fossil record stands pretty well on its own, and the molecular record does, as well. While evolutionary theory could be modified and improved, and it certainly will be, it won't be "disproven" in the way a lot of people think of things being disproven.

Answer 4

It cannot be proven wrong or right using scientific methods of repeatability and testing. It is a philosophy, a belief and a way of looking at the world. For those who believe it has been proven "fact" and rigorously tested, I beg to differ. There are tremendous problems with it and you will find few academics who defend Darwinistic evolution anymore. If you are interested in the mounds of evidence supporting creation against evolution, I would send you to:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html

If you have the courage to peruse this sight with an open mind, I am sure you will see the evidence for creation is very strong indeed.

Answer 5

...that makes it a theory and a belief.. Science is observation. The natural laws (alone) disprove evolution. Also, most suppose natural selection is evolution, not so. Natural selection is traits already in existence, not new traits or species 'grown' or 'evolved' to.. Such as the white peppered moth survives better than the brown, when the the trees they frequent are covered with white lichen and are therefore a white background rather then a brown.. And the brown peppered moth survives better than the white, when the trees are a brown background... etc, etc, etc..

Answer 6

It would make the process a scientific inquiry, but it wouldn't make the theory itself science.

Science should be falsifiable. But if it is proven false, then it is no longer science. However, it has gone through the proper scientific process and through proper scientific inquiry.

So, in short, the process would be scientific, the result would not. However, I find the odds of such an occurance happening to evolution quite far-fetched.

Answer 7

SAM21462's response is correct.

By the way, Evolution is the most rigorously tested theory that ever existed, but nobody has been able to punch a significant hole in it. After all, so many find it offensive, so it makes sense that so many would set out to prove it false. But all have failed.

Oh, and ID doesn't count. The scientific method was not used to come up with that piece of crap.

Answer 8

In a way, yes .. a large part of science is the attempt to disprove a theory or hypothesis. Evolution has withstood many such tests and has never failed to be proven as a correct theory.

Answer 9

wait a second I'm confused....are you saying all of science is wrong because if that's the case remove all synthetic fibers (science made those), stop using hair care products (yup science again), no more moisturizers (you guessed it science), oh and don't go on a computer (faith didn't make that possible, it was science) And science can accept change and formulate a new theory. The question sounds like everything consists of four elements is science.

Answer 10

Not really sure what you are asking but evolution is fact. To what extent is argued. We know that atoms come together and form composites and molecules to form masses. The one thing we have not been able to do yet is the transformation of non living to living. This is why the religious people want "intelligent design" to be taught along with evolution is schools. We are real close...really close but not quite yet.