A Remarkable Piece of Anti-Evolutionary Logic
Via Quintessence of Dust I found this post at Reasons to Believe, with the following interesting paragraph:
The fundamental problem with evolution as a scientific theory is that it is neither predictive nor falsifiable. Embryologist and geneticist C. H. Waddington says, The theory of evolution is unfalsifiable If an animal evolves one way, biologists have a perfectly good explanation; but if it evolves some other way, they have an equally good explanation . The theory is not a predictive theory as to what must happen.1
What interests me here is that the theory of evolution is criticized for not doing something it was not intended to do. We frequently see this when the theory of biological evolution is criticized for not explaining the origin of life, or for not explaining where matter came from. We don’t expect the theory of gravity to also explain why there is something and not nothing; given that there is something, the various predictions of that theory seem to work.
In this case, the error is a bit more subtle. The quoted author is apparently saying that the theory of evolution is to be criticized for not predicting just how a particular population will evolve. It predicts general pathways, but not actual results. But that is precisely what a theory that includes random activity will predict. We have essentially random input in variation (well, not totally random, but with random elements), and it is then controlled by environmental factors which are also not totally predictable. We know generally how these will interact, but we do not, and very probably cannot know the actual result with any certainty, other than that variations that improve reproductive success are more likely (not certain) to survive.
I’m used to this sort of thing from archeology. One can’t look at a particular culture and predict what will happen to it, unless one includes a huge number of “ifs.” Archeology can predict things about what activities will leave what results, but it can’t tell you what will be there ahead of time.
The criticism posited of evolution, therefore, is a criticism that evolution does not do something it is not intended to do. It is sort of like criticizing my hammer because it is totally useless is sawing boards.
Note: I am responding solely to the quote as provided by and used by the poster at Reasons. I have not checked its context and do not know if they used it properly in context.