Standards of proof

Just some quick thoughts about the current controversy about Intelligent Design. In particular, the standards of proof used in science:

1) Proof by lack of counterexamples. This is the primary method of the hard physical sciences. This is what Karl Popper’s standard of falsifiability entails. When a scientific “theory” is said to be “established”, what is really meant is that we have observed no counterexamples, or only very few that depart significantly from what the theory says. If a substantial counterexample is found, then the theory needs either to be revised or overthrown. This pattern of revision and revolution has been observed in Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

2) Proof by possibility of evidences, even if actual evidences are lacking. This is the modus operandi of macroevolutionary biology. The apparent sudden appearance of complex structures and the lack of evidences showing transitional forms do not bother hardcore evolutionists. All that is required to establish evolution is the mere possibility of the existence of evidences. This standard of proof is much weaker than the proof by lack of counterexamples, because there is no way to falsify the given theory. The proof of existence of something (a counterexample in the physical sciences) is hard enough. But the proof of nonexistence is even harder, if not impossible. Thus, contrary to popular notions, evolution is unfalsifiable because one cannot prove the nonexistence of transitional forms, for dogs could have eaten them. By contrast, particular arguments for Intelligent Design are falsifiable. All that is required is real evidence that shows how species gradually transform from one to another, with a specified timeline that allow for significant probability (not mere possibility), fossil records, etc.

3) Proof by divine intervention. (a) The person attempting the proof invokes divine curse upon himself if the proposed theory were not true: “If this theory is not true, may God strike me dead in three seconds!” One ... two ... three ... I am still alive. Ergo, the theory is true. (b) Discontinuities and aberrations cannot be explained by “natural processes” and therefore must be an act of God.