Unfalsifiable

"Some evolutionary biologists are of the opinion that it is not necessarily the fittest that survive through the evolutionary process, but those that are best adapted to the requirements of evolution. Others have emphasized that survival of the organism is not as important as its fecundity. In both cases the problem of predictability remains. In a symposium volume celebrating 100 years of Darwinism the prominent geneticist Waddington (1960, p. 385) evaluates the matter of fecundity. He states:

Natural selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis that was in need of experimental or observational confirmation, turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of inevitable although previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those which leave most offspring) will leave most offspring.

Another problem associated with the untestability of evolutionary theory is that the theory explains too much. Grene (1959) points out that "whatever might at first sight appear as evidence against the theory is assimilated by redefinition into the theory." Evolutionary theory is broad enough to accommodate almost any data that may be applied. Two ecologists Birch and Ehrlich (1967) emphasize this. They state:

Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it.

No matter what is observed, there usually is an appropriate evolutionary explanation for it. If an organ or organism develops, it has positive survival value; if it degenerates, it has negative survival value. If a complex biological system appears suddenly, it is due to preadaptation. "Living fossils" (contemporary representatives of organisms expected to be extinct) survive because the environment did not change. If the environment changes and an evolutionary lineage survives, it is due to adaptation. If the lineage dies, it is because the environment changed too much, etc. Hence the concept cannot be falsified. Platnick (1977) states that this type of situation "makes of evolutionary biologists spinners of tales, bedtime storytellers, instead of empirical investigators."

(Ariel A. Roth, 'DOES EVOLUTION QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE?'
from: http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm )

Circular Reasoning

"A few scientists (e.g., Williams 1970, 1973, Ball 1975, Ferguson 1976) have tried to show that evolutionary theory can predict. Their attempts, however, are concerned with the small changes of the special theory of evolution instead of the general one which is at issue and which is the main subject of the declaration published in the Humanist. These small changes do not prove large ones as Grene (1959) points out:

By what right are we to extrapolate the pattern by which colour or other such superficial characters are governed to the origin of species, let alone of classes, orders, phyla of living organisms?

The question of the testability of the general theory of evolution remains.
Basic textbooks of biology usually illustrate evolution using the concept of homologous structures. Here we have another example of circular reasoning that would not pass the prediction test for science. Homologous structures are defined as comparable parts of different life forms that have a common evolutionary origin. The forelimbs of a salamander, crocodile, bird, bat, whale, mole and man all have the same basic bone structure and are considered homologous. Similarity does not necessarily imply evolution. A student commenting to an evolutionary professor put it aptly: "They find a muscle in an animal and give it a name; in another animal they find a muscle in a similar position and give it the same name and then call it evolution." Darwin himself used the argument of similarity of structure to support evolution.

Lee (1969) points out that the argument is logically invalid:

He [Darwin] argued that morphological similarities were due to common descent and yet offered no further really acceptable evidence for common descent save morphological similarities. A circular piece of reasoning if there ever was one.

Hull (1967) makes the same complaint:

It is tautological to say that homologous resemblances are indicative of common line of descent, since by definition homologous resemblances are those resemblances due to common line of descent.

The same difficulty reappears when evolutionists attempt to classify living and fossil organisms so that their evolutionary relationships are revealed. One might select, for example, the group of invertebrates which most closely resembles the chordates and place the two groups near each other in a classification scheme. The classification is then often used as evidence for an evolutionary relationship."


(Ariel A. Roth, 'DOES EVOLUTION QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE?'
from: http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm )

Quote re: Explanations for theory of Evolution are not falsifiable

"Evolutionary biologists have a choice to make: either we agree with Mayr that narrative explanations are the name of the game, and continue drifting away from the rest of biology into an area ruled only by authority and consensus, or we insist that whenever possible our explanations be testable and potentially falsifiable and that evolutionary biology rejoin the scientific community at large."

(Platnick, 1977, "Systematic Zoology")

Quote re: Darwinism has become a religion

"The controversy over whether or not evolution is a scientific principle has reached beyond the scientific community. In his article entitled "Darwin's Mistake," published in Harper's Magazine, Bethell (1976) states his belief that Darwin's theory "is on the verge of collapse." The jurist Macbeth (1971) in his book 'Darwin Retried' presents a long list of illogical arguments employed in support of evolution. He does not defend creation, yet states that "Darwinism itself has become a religion" (p. 126)."


(Ariel A. Roth, 'DOES EVOLUTION QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE?'
from: http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm )

Quote re: Evolution of the human eye

"Evolutionists are hard-pressed to explain the step-by-step accidental development of the human eye, which is characterized by a staggering complexity. Furnished with automatic aiming, automatic focusing, and automatic aperture adjustment, the human eye can function from almost complete darkness to bright sunlight, see an object the diameter of a fine hair, and make about 100,000 separate motions in an average day, faithfully affording us a continuous series of color stereoscopic pictures. All of this is performed usually without complaint, and then while we sleep, it carries on its own maintenance work.

The human eye is so complex and sophisticated that scientists still do not fully understand how it functions. Considering the absolutely amazing, highly sophisticated synchronization of complex structures and mechanisms that work together to produce human vision, it is difficult to understand how evolutionists can honestly believe that the eye came about through a step-by-step, trial and error evolutionary process. This is especially true when we realize that the eye would be useless unless fully developed. It either functions as an integrated whole or not at all. Clearly, the piecemeal evolution of the human eye is a completely outlandish and unreasonable notion."

(Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution," pp. 23,26)