Refuting evolution

Is it possible to refute evolution? The answer most people give is no. Although a few people have been bold enough to offer ways this could be done; this is an exceedingly small group, and the tests offered can be listed on one hand.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Various Darwinists have proposed tests which could refute evolution. For example, Darwin said that an example of truly altruistic behaviour would disprove the theory. However, dandelions produce nectar, which benefits insects, but have no need of the visits from the insects because dandelions reproduce asexually. But then the story-telling comes into play to rescue the theory: dandelions originally reproduced sexually so produced nectar for their own benefit but have since lost the need for it.' [1.]

- You can't refute evolutionary theory (in the sense of getting people to admit it's wrong) because you can't 'refute' the wickedness (and contrariness) of the human heart. Every time you knock it down it rises up again. The rebel in man finds it very hard to accept the idea of a creator god. (Why some people are especially hostile to the idea I don't know.)

2. 'Another example: Michael Ruse argues that organisms could not evolve a second time, and if they did, it would refute Darwinism (p. 151).

'But some foraminifera have re-appeared in the fossil record after disappearing, and knowing this, Schafersman says that 'evolution does not assume or require nonrepeatability'. Evolutionary theory is so plastic it can conform to any data.' [1.]

- In my opinion the failure of the origin life experiments to produce anything of note is also a refutation of E. theory. The billions of missing links are also a refutation. [Add the inability to explain the source of new information.] These aren't small problems; they're major refutations of the theory.

- Having said this I don't believe this refutes evolutionary theory in an absolute sense; but I do think it's been conclusively refuted in our day. (It's impossible to know what might happen in the future; but I can't see any way these things can be overturned.)

- If Darwinism was science people would have long ago admitted the theory had been refuted. (At least temporarily; or for the known future) The fact no amount of refutation has the slightest effect on the theory shows that its metaphysical speculation, and not science. Darwinism lives because man's desire to be god lives. Darwinism lives because man's desire to expel god from the universe lives. This will never change. (I can hear the late Tim Buckley, in another context, singing ''this old world will never change...") [3.]

Notes;
1. The Biotic Message: Evolution versus Message Theory - Walter James ReMine; Reviewed by Don Batten
2. Refute;
- 1513, "refuse, reject," from L. refutare "drive back, repress, repel, rebut," from re- "back" + -futare "to beat," probably from PIE base *bhat- "to strike down" (cf. beat). Meaning "prove wrong" dates from 1545. Since c.1964 linguists have frowned on the subtle shift in meaning towards "to deny," as it is used in connection with allegation.
3. Dolphins - Tim Buckley
4. Along these lines you might want to listen to an interview with Cornelius Hunter ('Darwin's Proof') Issues, etc. Archives [August 2003]
- I find Hunter to be one of the most interesting of the Creationists. (Toward the end of the interview he talks about how Evolution theory has become unfalsifiable.)