Truth, The Scientific Method, and

Evolution
Sean D. Pitman M.D.
© August 2003

The Theory of Evolution is believed by many to be "true" - especially by most of

today’s scientists. Many others, even among evolutionists, believe in the "truth" of God

or in an original designer. Still others believe in the “truth” of original creation where the

basic ideas of evolution are completely excluded. But how, exactly, do different people

come to their own personal understanding of what is true and was is not?

What is truth? How do we know what we know? Do we have an inherent

knowledge of truth? If so, then we need not learn. If we do find ourselves learning,

changing, and growing in our understanding of the world around us, does this not mean

that we are subject to that world and to what our senses and reason tell us about it? If

we are subjects of our senses, then we cannot know beyond them and what information

they give to us. In other words, we cannot know the external world directly (like we know

our own internal thoughts and feelings). We cannot know if we are but in a dream or a

computer animation. However, if we wish to survive in this environment, whatever it may

be, we must be able to interpret what our senses are telling us about our environment.
There has to be some method that helps us decide if our interpretations are correct,

incorrect, or need some sort of revision. The "scientific method" has proven to be one of

the most helpful ways of sorting out truth from error.

The scientific method is very simple - a basic "crap detector" if you will. We have

all used it since infancy. It is simply a description of the process of learning that involves

observation, hypothesis, testing, and revising.1 When we learn something new about

our environment, we first observe or sense something through our senses. We then

propose a hypothesis in our mind that explains this observation. A hypothesis makes

certain assumptions or predictions about the future. If these predictions hold true, the

hypothesis is strengthened in its usefulness as a predictive tool, but it can never be

absolutely confirmed since we remain subjective creatures (subject to our senses and to

indirect interpretations of what they are telling us).

The strength of the scientific method is found not so much in its ability to detect

truth, but in its ability to detect error. It has the ability to rule out those hypothesis and

theories that are definitely wrong. For instance, someone might observe a man

scratching his nose and then rolling a pair of dice - which end up on double six’s. One

might then hypothesize that this man’s nose scratching caused him to roll double six’s.

The prediction could then be made that this will always hold true in the future. If the man

roles double six's again after scratching his nose, the hypothesis is strengthened, but

not absolutely confirmed. This could have been a coincidence after all. However, if this

prediction holds one hundred times in a row, one might become more confident, but

never absolutely certain. All one can do is point to the past predictive usefulness of this

hypothesis. But, if this man happens to roll a two and a five after scratching his nose,
the initial hypothesis has clearly failed and either needs to be revised or even replaced

by a different hypothesis.

The scientific method is an extremely powerful learning tool in that it detects error

and so narrows the possibilities where truth may be found. If truth exists in any field of

thought or learning, the scientific method can be used as a guide to help one approach

this truth. Certainly then, the scientific method is a very versatile method. It can be used

for anything as mundane as hog calling to physics and mathematics.

Anyone can be a scientist and any area of thought can be approached in a

scientific manner. However, this does not mean that all people are scientific in their

thinking - even in such "hard" sciences as physics or mathematics. Humans have a

tendency to believe a lot of things based on feelings - or a desire or love for a particular

idea. The problem here is that the truth about external reality or truth is not dependent

upon personal desire. The moon will not just disappear even if I really really want the

moon to disappear - or the sky to be green instead of blue. Truth will be true regardless

of one's feelings concerning it.

So, if one honestly desires to know truth, a conscientious effort must be made to

limit one's emotions during the search. All possibilities must be considered with none

being ruled out simply on the basis of personal likes or dislikes. All of our ideas must be

open to challenge and question. This becomes easier when we realize that human

understanding can never achieve full perfection. When we come to this point, we are

forced to conclude that our individual search for truth is never ending. We can approach

truth, but we will never fully realize truth. Even established theories must be subject to
re-evaluation and adjustment as new information comes to light - even if they be long

cherished religious ideas that have brought great comfort.

This concept is important when one starts to consider the heated topic of our own

origins and the origin of all other living things. Certainly an understanding of origins is

important as far as how one approaches the future and is often important in establishing

personal motivations. However, with so many differing opinions presenting themselves,

how can one sort out the "truth" for one's self? Does the scientific method support one

position over the others? Or, it is true that some things can only be believed based on a

"faith" that goes beyond science?

Currently there are two main opposing camps of thought concerning the origin and

diversity of life. On the one hand there is the purely naturalistic Theory of Evolution. On

the other hand there is the Intelligent Design Theory. There are many variations within

both camps as well as many theories that contain elements from both, but very few

theories concerning the origin and diversity of living things exist outside of these two

main camps. The purists in each camp accuse those in the other camp of straying from

true science and even of being outright "religious" in their respective positions.

It is commonly stated that religion should be left to theologians while science

should be left to scientists. This argument assumes that some important truths are

beyond scientific investigation and are thus matters of "faith." What many do not seem

to realize is that all human knowledge is a matter of faith. All human theories are

statements of faith - even when it comes to the "purer" sciences of physics and

mathematics. Human theories may be backed up by a greater or lesser degree of

evidence, but, like all human attempts to search out truth, no one and no theory has
ever achieved absolute perfection in any aspect of human knowledge concerning the

external world. Obviously then, without access to absolute knowledge, a degree of faith

remains when one holds a particular position to be true - be it a "religious" or a

"scientific" position.

A theory is therefore a faith and a faith is therefore a theory. Of course, one who

holds a particular faith or theory to be "true" may or may not choose to apply the

scientific method to that position. If the scientific method is not or cannot be applied to

investigate or test a particular position, then it is impossible to detect any possible error

in such a position. Without the ability to detect error, a particular position cannot be said

to be "better" or "worse" than any other position. All such faiths and/or theories become

equal.

So, if a person or group presents one particular faith or theory as better than any

other faith or theory, they have to be able to back this position up with testable reasons

that make better predictions concerning an observation (i.e., with the use of the

scientific method).

But what if a faith or theory concerns a historical event? Is it possible to test a

historical event? The study of origins and diversity is a historical study. All origins

happened in the past. Certainly we cannot go back and directly observe these origins.

For example, I believe that the man Abraham Lincoln was the president of the United

States during the Civil War. I did not live during this time. I never met Mr. Lincoln. I

cannot go back and directly test the "truthfulness" of my belief concerning either Mr.

Lincoln or the Civil War. Is my belief in the actual life and activities of Mr. Lincoln simply
a case of "blind" faith? Not if historical studies can be done with the use of the scientific

method.

Documents, archeological discoveries, etc. can be tested for agreement and

predictive value as they relate to each other. The amount, degree, and quality of

agreement or disagreement between various sources pertaining to a particular historical

event can be directly tested. For example, lets say that I am reading from a historical

document that is discussing a particular Civil War battle. The ink and paper can be

tested to see if they match other documents thought to be from the same time period.

The handwriting can be tested by analysis to see if it matches other documents

supposedly written by the same person. Also, if these documents state exactly where a

battle was fought and describe in detail what type of weapons and ammunition where

used, one could go and find a location that seems to match the description found in this

document, and then dig and find similar weapons and ammunition. Certainly then, the

degree of agreement between such sources of information is statistically testable. The

scientific method can be applied here. The study of history can therefore be a science.

Similarly, the theory of evolution concerns the topic of origins. All origins happened

in the past. So, the theory of evolution is in a large degree a science that proposes to

explain a part of history. But, is this explanation of history "true"? It certainly could be.

If the truth of the matter is that evolution did happen and is real, then there should be

evidence of its activity. This evidence could be discovered and interpreted in much the

same way that one might come to believe any other historical event to be "true".

Many claim that the correlatory evidence is everywhere and that it overwhelming

supports the predictions of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not only true, it is "obviously
true" - as obvious as the nose on your face. In fact, it is not only historically obvious, but

its activity can be detected today . . . in real time! And, it will continue to be a real force

in nature into the future. Because of this, the theory of evolution is presented as not just

a historical science, but a present and future science as well. It can be tested and

studied in the laboratory in real time. Many new functions, such as antibiotic resistance,

changes in the color of moths, variations in finch beaks, and the enormous number of

wild and domestic breeds of dogs, cats, birds, cattle, plants and animals of every kind

speak to the creative power of what evolutionary processes can do.

Certainly, the theory of evolution did seem to explain a great deal of what we see

happening in the natural world. In fact, observations like these are what made various

people start to ponder various evolutionary ideas well before Darwin came on the

scene. But is it all really as clear as many have come to believe? Surprisingly, even

among well-educated scientists, experts in their own fields, questions concerning the

fundamental truths of the theory of evolution are bubbling to the surface. Obviously, the

theory of evolution remains a very popular explanation of origins, especially among

most scientists. However, I am not alone in thinking that the theory of evolution is

severely limited in what it can explain - to the point of being completely untenable given

what we now know about genetics, geology, the fossil record, and various dating

mechanisms today.

1. Morano, David. Experimental Science Projects:An Intermediate Level Guide, Mankato State University. May, 1995.
. Home Page . Truth, the Scientific
Method, and Evolution

. Methinks it is Like a Weasel . The Cat and the Hat -

The Evolution of Code

. Maquiziliducks - The Language of Evolution . Defining Evolution

. The God of the Gaps . Rube Goldberg

Machines

. Evolving the Irreducible . Gregor Mendel

. Natural Selection . Computer Evolution

. Which Came First . Antibiotic

Resistance

. The Immune System . Pseudogenes

. Genetic Phylogeny . Fossilized DNA

. DNA Mutation Rates . Donkeys, Horses,
Mules and Evolution

. The Fossil Record . The Geologic

Column

. Early Man . The Human Eye

. Carbon 14 . Radiometric Dating

. Quotes from Scientists . Ancient Ice

. Meaningful Information . Limited

Evolutionary Potential

. Harlen Bretz

Debates:

Stacking the Deck

God of the Gaps

 The Density of Beneficial Functions

All Functions are Irreducibly Complex

Ladder of Complexity

Chaos and Complexity

Confusing Chaos with Complexity

Evolving Bacteria

Irreducible Complexity

Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design

A Circle Within a Circle

Crop Circles

Mindless vs. Mindful

Single Protein Functions

BCR/ABL Chimeric Protein

Function Flexibility

The Limits of Functional Flexibility

Functions based on Deregulation

Neandertal DNA

Human/Chimp phylogenies

Geology

The Geologic Column

Fish Fossils

Matters of Faith

Evidence of Things Unseen

The Two Impossible Options

 Links to Design, Creation, and Evolution Websites

Search this site or the web powered by FreeFind

Site search Web search

Since June 1, 2002