Arguments XXV - Weaknesses and Flaws

One of the arguments being heard around the country, most recently in the voting on the new Texas science standards, concerns the strengths and weaknesses arguments against evolution -- and other scientific theories. I have addressed them, but I want to hit on the 'weaknesses' one more time, this time examining more terminology differences starting with a simple question, what s a flaw?

A 'flaw' in anything is a point of failure, a point where whatever it is can, and someday will, stop doing whatever it does. A flaw in a baseball bat will result in a broken bat. A flaw in a bridge will result in a fallen bridge. It may happen quickly, it may happen slowly, but over time it will happen. Look at the recent bridge failure in Minnesota. That bridge stood for decades until one, or several, flaws reached a certain point and the bridge fell.

What is a flaw in a scientific theory? It would be a point where the theory fails! Now I have frequently asked what are the flaws in the scientific theory of evolution? I have asked here in the blog, I have asked over on Topix, I have asked on the numerous posts I have made on a number of articles across multiple on-line publications. I get lots of responses, but no flaws.

For example the one that people immediate see as a flaw is that the current Theory of Evolution (TOE) doesn't explain life's origins on Earth. The is not a flaw, since the TOE does not address the origin of life on Earth. I have also heard that the TOE doesn't account for Noah's Flood. Again, that is not a flaw in the TOE since evolution doesn't address flood or flood geology. Another common 'flaw' is how random chance cannot adequately explain the diversity of life. This supposed 'flaw' is based on a poor understanding of the TOE, because the TOE is not a random chance process.

So what we have are a bunch of perceptual flaws, but not actual flaws. None of the ones told to me, nor claimed in places like Answers in Genesis or Discovery Institute press releases, describe anything resembling a point where the TOE fails. There is a pretty simple reason for it. Before an idea/hypothesis becomes a scientific theory it is tested, beat-up, abused by literally an army of scientists over decades of time. Anything that is an actual flaw is discovered and it the hypothesis cannot adequately explain it, then the hypothesis NEVER becomes a scientific theory. What is not addressed are the things OUTSIDE of the theory. If the theory does not explain things like life's origins, flood geology, or a random process, then these are not and cannot be considered flaws in the theory!

So once again I ask anyone who reads this blog, send me a list, or post it here in the comments, of flaws in the TOE! Actual ones, not perceptual flaws, not wishful thinking flaws, but actual flaws that address one or more parts of the actual TOE. Then we might have a discussion on them.

I have used the term 'weaknesses' before and how I separate the terms is simple. There are things that we do not know. In other words there are areas of theories that may someday need to change, usually based on new knowledge. I certainly don't think Newton's theories about gravity are 'flawed' simple because we have access to technology that he didn't have. We ave discovered areas where his theories are not applicable. That still doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them, just that they need new work. Einstein added that new work and while he didn't replace Newton's theories, he certainly expanded the over all Theory of Gravity. This is an example of how science works and should not be considered an actual weakness, or a flaw by any stretch of the imagination. Weaknesses are not weaknesses in the theories, but more weaknesses in our knowledge and understanding. Again, if they were actual weaknesses, a hypothesis would never become a scientific theory.

One last little note about the idea of flaws/weaknesses in scientific theories. It amazes me how someone like Ken Ham or Casey Luskin can make claims about the absolute inerrancy of the Bible and yet claim that there are flaws in any scientific theory based either on things we don't know, or things completely outside the theory. So in other words with no evidence at all he accepts one concept blindly, yet demands a level of perfection before he will even consider the other. Hmmm, anyone else see the FLAWS in those arguments?