The Hypothesis of Evolution

Scientists talk about evolution as if it were a scientific law. But according to their own methodology, evolution remains only an hypothesis.

As stated in another article of this website (The Scientific Method and Sacred Cows), the method used by scientists must go through a series of steps to arrive at a solid conclusion.

The steps of the scientific method, which most of us learned in high school science classes, are simple: [1] Observe data, [2] Make an hypothesis, [3] Test the hypothesis, [4] If it passes the tests, make it a theory, [5] Test and retest, [6] If it passes all tests, make it a law.

Evolution hasn't even made it out of the starting gate yet.

Scientists have observed the universe. It is quite a fantastic place. Huge beyong imagination. Complex, really complex. Fascinating. Beautiful. Scary.

From the observations of the universe made by scientists for centuries, an hypothesis has been proposed. The hypothesis states that based on the data observed, the universe has evolved (gradually changed) over 13 billion plus years into what we see it as today.

So far this is legitimate science. Observe the data, create an hypthesis to explain the data.

But at this point scientists begin to have trouble with their own method of dealing with information. The next step is to test the hypothesis. It is necessary to invent experiments that will either support the hypothesis, or bring it down to defeat.

So, how does one test the hypothesis of evolution? The obvious answer is that one cannot test this hypothesis. It is not possible to create experiments which will either support or defeat this particular hypothesis.

Evolution, which is gradual change, cannot be tested in a laboratory experiment. How does one observe 13 billion years of gradual change in a laboratory? One does not. One can not.

Scientists cannot observe events that took place billions of years ago. There were no witnesses to write down what happened. There were no cameras to record the events. The hypothesis of evolution is built on data scientists are not able to see or recreate.

The evolution of human beings is said to have involved the gradual transition of creatures from primates (apes) to humans. That is the hypothesis. But how can one create experiments to support this hypothesis? In all the recorded history we have, apes remain apes and humans remain humans. No one has ever seen evolution of species taking place, and no one can create a situation in which it can take place. In order for this hypothesis, that primates gradually evolved into humans, to be supported, experiments must be conducted that show this change taking place. It cannot be done.

The same problem occurs when scientists attempt to explain human behavior using the scientific method. A recent study suggested to researchers that political ideologies are hard-wired into people's brains. Conservative brains act differently than liberal brains.

The people who said they were liberals tended to be creative and try ways to get around the obstacle or to take new paths away from the obstacle. The people who said they were conservative tended to try ways to continue with the routine in spite of the obstacle.

Again, so far this is legitimate science. But here is the problem. This hypothesis is not proven by the experiments. The scientists could not say all liberals were pliable and it could not say all conservatives were rigid. But that is what would have to be proved in order for this hypothesis to become a theory.

The researchers in this study admitted they could not draw valid conclusions from the study. They did not know whether conservatives become rigid because they are conservative or whether rigid thinkers become conservatives. The same was true for liberals. They also could not tell which was "better." It would be possible to say that liberals were creative and conservatives rigid, or it could be said that liberals were wishy-washy and conservatives were loyal and consistent.

The same problem blocks the attempts of scientists to prove that sexual orientation is hard-wired into people's brains. That is what psychologists are saying. Heterosexual behavior is hard-wired and cannot be changed. Homosexual behavior is hard-wired and cannot be changed. Neither lifestyle is a choice.

But how does one get this opinion past the hypothesis stage? One cannot, because the hypothesis cannot be proved to be true or untrue.

Before an hypothesis can become a theory it must be demonstrated to be true by repeatable and exhaustive tests. Then before a theory can become a law, it must be demonstrated to be true by even more repeatable and exhaustive tests.

The hypothesis of evolution cannot be proved true or untrue. The hypothesis about liberal vs. conservative thinking cannot be proved true or untrue. The hypothesis that sexual orientation is hard-wired cannot be proved true or untrue.

Scientists need to be more honest in reporting the results of their experiments to prove an hypothesis. The media also need to be more careful in reporting these results.

People are gullable, unfortunately, and many think that if a research project has concluded that there is a tendency in one direction or the other, that is like saying "this is a law of science." That is most certainly not what we have.

Evolution and many other hypothesis made by scientists are a long, long way from becoming legitimate theories, let alone scientific laws.

Until an hypothesis becomes a theory and the theory becomes a law through exhaustive testing, it is just someone's opinion.