Part of the testimony in Arkansas was designed to refute thisargument, and it was shown that in fact evolution does indeed makefalsifiable claims. As we have already seen, natural selection is notautology. If one could show that organisms did not exhibitdifferential reproduction — to take the example given above,that all proto-humans had the same number of offspring — then itwould certainly be false. Likewise, if one could show that human anddinosaur remains truly did occur in the same time strata of the fossilrecord, one would have powerful proof against the thinking of modernevolutionists. This argument succeeded in court — the judgeaccepted that evolutionary thinking is falsifiable. Conversely, heaccepted that Creation Science is never truly open to check. It isnot falsifiable and hence not genuine science. However, after the casea number of prominent philosophers (most notably the American LarryLaudan) objected strongly to the very idea of using falsifiabilty as a‘criterion of demarcation’ between science andnon-science. They argued that in fact there is no hard and fast rulefor distinguishing science from other forms of human activity, andthat hence in this sense the Creationists might have a point. Not thatpeople like Laudan were themselves Creationists. They thoughtCreationism false. Their objection was rather to trying to find someway of making evolution and not Creationism into a genuinescience.


Satisfied customers are saying