Is Physics Corrupted By Evolutionary Science Techniques?

Attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science, argue George Ellis and Joe Silk.

"This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific."

It would be interesting to edit this article to replace "physics" and "the universe" with "evolution"... so I will.

Attempts to exempt speculative theories of evolution from experimental verification undermine science, argue actual biologists.

"This year, debates in evolution circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed biological facts, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical evolution is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific."

The article continues:

"Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as the kaleidoscopic multiverse (comprising myriad universes), the 'many worlds' version of quantum reality (in which observations spawn parallel branches of reality) and pre-Big Bang concepts."

Now for the Evolution equivalent:

"Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some evolutionary theorists. Because evolution is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying biology [except for first life, common ancestor, predictive ability, and utility for biology of modern life] they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on emergent complexity and organic change that we can never observe. Some biologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains such as first life as molecular replicators and first life as metabolites, the Darwinian “variation and selection” (in which all life is gradually and infinitely variable) and preserved mutation concepts."

And then this on physics:

"These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as the standard model of particle physics and the existence of dark matter and dark energy. As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man's-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any."

With this evolution analog:

"These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as organic operation of modern organisms and the function of DNA in genetics, and the information transmission and feedback systems in cells. As we see it, theoretical evolution risks becoming a no-man's-land between fossils and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any."

The similarity is uncanny; physics:

"The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books1, 2, 3 and articles, including some by one of us (G.E.)4. In March, theorist Paul Steinhardt wrote5 in this journal that the theory of inflationary cosmology is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result. Theorist and philosopher Richard Dawid6 and cosmologist Sean Carroll7 have countered those criticisms with a philosophical case to weaken the testability requirement for fundamental physics."

And the evolution analog continues:

"The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. Evolutionary theory has been criticized in popular books and articles. In comparative criticism claims that the theory of Evolution is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result. Theorists … have countered those criticisms with a philosophical case to weaken the testability requirement for fundamental Evolution."

And these paragraphs stand as they are:

"Pass the test

We agree with theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder: post-empirical science is an oxymoron (see go.nature.com/p3upwp and go.nature.com/68rijj). Theories such as quantum mechanics and relativity turned out well because they made predictions that survived testing. Yet numerous historical examples point to how, in the absence of adequate data, elegant and compelling ideas led researchers in the wrong direction, from Ptolemy's geocentric theories of the cosmos to Lord Kelvin's 'vortex theory' of the atom and Fred Hoyle's perpetual steady-state Universe.

The consequences of overclaiming the significance of certain theories are profound — the scientific method is at stake (see go.nature.com/hh7mm6). To state that a theory is so good that its existence supplants the need for data and testing in our opinion risks misleading students and the public as to how science should be done and could open the door for pseudoscientists [i.e. evolutionists] to claim that their ideas meet similar requirements."

With this finale:

"The imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable. Only then can we defend science from attack."

BRAVO! Well said, and more power to you!

The reason that this will never be heard from respectable biologists regarding evolution is purely ideological: evolution is a political and religious theory which is protected by law in order to establish Atheism and Materialism as respectable worldviews. To criticize it so brutally might get such talk declared a hate crime.