Darwin on Trial Ch. 12: Science and Pseudoscience
Is evolutionary theory science or is it a pseudoscience? In the final chapter of the book, Johnson points out how evolutionary theory has been evaluated by leading philosophers of science who claim that Darwinism is riddled with incongruities that signify its eventual downfall. Karl Popper, a philosopher noted earlier, compares Darwinism with Marxism and Freudianism.
Like these two systems, Darwinism seeks to explain everything. When scientists find evidence to support their claims, albeit predetermined evidence, this is seen as confirmation of their theory and rightfully so if the evidence is conclusive. But like these two systems Darwinism has the tendency to shift its position slightly when negative evidence is presented such that their altered theory makes accommodations for the new evidence. Popper astutely observes that “a theory that appears to explain everything actually explains nothing.” (In fact, this behavior is remarkably reminiscent of young boys who all-to-eagerly change the rules of a game just to suit their advantage.)
Popper provides examples wherein a theory that has viability will also have the potential for failure – this is the mark of true science, and the scientific method. This potential for failure is a distinct characteristic of Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. It was a bold, specific prediction and was open to falsification because of its fundamental precision, not ambiguity. Einstein submitted his proofs and thus opened himself up to not only analysis by the best minds in physics but also with the test of whether his theory corresponded with reality. Freud and the Marxists only ever looked for confirming examples for their theories and thus never had the chance of failure. Darwinism fits this mold exactly. This mold is what Johnson and others assure is the wrong view of science. This wrong view of science demonstrates its nature in its “craving to be right”.
In that light, Darwinism is less a science and more a pseudoscience. Darwinism’s classification as a pseudoscience is evident in the bare reality that its proponents dismiss the lack of empirical evidence to support their claims, while also ignoring the fact that the process by which they claim life developed on the planet has no observable verification. Assumptions abound. Unconfirmed inferences spill over from the pages of science textbooks. And much of society is already dressed up with the lingo that presupposes the source’s veridicality.
