Sir Karl Popper said Darwinism is not science because it is not testable
(i.e. falsifiable) -- and in return he received scathing criticism from
Darwinians. Later he made a mild (and unconvincing to Micheal Ruse)
recantation of the point. Since then evolutionists sight Popper's
recantation as definitive evidence that their theory is scientific.
But the reasons Popper gave in his recantation are inadequate, and fall down
on inspection. I dismantle his recantation in an appendix of my book, _The
Biotic Message_.
I will be very brief here, so as not to belabor you with details. In
effect, Popper's recantation took theory A -- Darwinian natural selection --
and divided it into two parts: B & C. Theory B is sexual selection, theory
C is the 'other types' of selection. He then focused on the ability of
theory B to **** "explain" **** the data better than theory C. His focus is
on explanation, and his (arbitrary) division of Darwinism into two competing
theories B and C. The issue of testability gets lost in the confusion --
he didn't discuss it. He never established the testability of theories A,
B, or C.
Popper's article also made the usual evolutionary error of using a special
definition of fitness -- for example, in the special case of industrial
melanism and the moths. Evolutionists use a special definition whenever
they wish to show the testability of natural selection. But a group of
disjointed, contradictory special definitions does not a unified theory
make. Special definitions do not make natural selection into science. See
my book for more details.
We must reject Popper's recantation as inadequate. It mis-applied (or
rather DIDN'T apply) his own established criterion of testability.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128