Evolution as a Proof of God: The Baha'i Perspective

Ahanu

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,303
Reaction score
566
Points
108
I'm curious about what other people (Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and so on) think of William Hatcher's essay A Scientific Proof of the Existence of God:

A Scientific Proof of the Existence of God Common Ground, The Blog

ABSTRACT
Of the various systems that we can actually observe in the physical world, some (e.g., the movement of small dust particles suspended in the air) appear to be perfectly random (or chaotic); whereas, others (e.g., the growth of leaved plants) exhibit a high degree of order and structure. Whenever scientists encounter a phenomenon or system that exhibits a significant evolution towards order, but without any observable reason for such movement, they suspect the cause to be the objective action of some unseen force (e.g., the unseen force of gravity that, in the presence of a large mass like the earth, causes the persistent downward movement of unsupported objects). Using this method, modern physics has now validated the existence of at least four basic forces (gravity, the strong and the weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetic force), and continues to examine the possibility that other, hitherto undetected, forces may exist. In 1921, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá presented a cogent scientific argument for the existence of an objective, unseen force as the only reasonable explanation for the phenomenon of biological evolution. In the years since ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s proof was first published, the findings of science have tended to show that, indeed, the phenomenon of evolution represents a persistent movement from disorder towards order of the kind that strongly suggests the action of some unobservable force different from all other forces so far discovered. In this article, we present a somewhat detailed reformulation of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s argument using certain contemporary scientific terms that were not current at the time ‘Abdu’l-Bahá wrote.
 
it clearly points to creationism not evaloution ..

its a case of being convinced against their will but their of the same opinion still ..

more proof of the sinful nature in people..
 
it clearly points to creationism not evaloution ..

Could you provide your proof, please?

its a case of being convinced against their will but their of the same opinion still ..

Proof, please?!

more proof of the sinful nature in people..

Proof, please?!!

Living fossils more

enigma's for secular researchers who accept the theory of evolution and who
believe that the earth is millions and billions of years old.


Enigma of Living Fossils

Okay. I read your article. I keep wondering how a living fossil disproves evolution. A species can plataeu for a long period of time with little noticeable changes.

And?
 
I'm curious about what other people (Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and so on) think of William Hatcher's essay A Scientific Proof of the Existence of God:

A Scientific Proof of the Existence of God Common Ground, The Blog

Evolution is not a process that contradicts the randomness of the universe, as the author argues. Indeed randomness is a critical part of the evolutionary process. If a random genetic mutation gives an individual of a species a competitive advantage for survival, that individual is more likely to survive and propagate its genes. Over time, this simple phenomena is known as evolution. If there were no random mutations, there would be no evolution.

The simplest explanation is often the most correct (Occam's Razor). The simplest explanation in the case of evolution is that genetic mutation and natural selection account for what we see in today's world. Even in a highly-developed being such as a human.

Was the first living single-cell organism "created" by "God"? Don't know. Probably never will. But the force that has driven the process from there doesn't need any deity or divine intervention to explain its progress.

I basically agree with the author until the last 2 sections "God Exists" and "The Nature of God." At that point his argument falls apart, as his bias towards a divine explanation shows through. He has a classic case of a "solution that is looking for a problem." True science looks at a given problem and tries to find the simplest plausible explanation, given the data. The simplest explanation for evolution is genetic mutation & natural selection, not divine intervention.

A great example of mutations of a species giving a competitive advantage and driving evolution is herbicide resistance in weeds. Anyone that repeatedly sprays "Roundup" (glyphosate) in their yard or garden will likely notice some pesticide resistant weeds in just a few years time. Each subsequent year there will be more & more.

And of course the flu virus evolves year-to-year, hence the flu vaccine is constantly being updated and you must get a new shot each year to be reasonably protected. Does this need a divine hand to explain it?

Two of my favorite modern-day examples of natural selection in humans are sickle-cell anemia and lactose intolerance. Why would an intelligent, divine "evolutionary force" make only 10% of modern-day Northern Europeans lactose intolerant but 99% of Chinese lactose intolerant? Wouldn't this be more easily explained by random mutations (human tolerance of lactose in animal milk) which conveyed an advantage for survival to individuals (in geographic areas where dairy was historically a part of their diet, like Northern Europe) who then propagated those genes?
 
There can be no scientific proof of God - the very suggestion is an oxymoron.
 
I basically agree with the author until the last 2 sections "God Exists" and "The Nature of God."

You disagree with more sections than the last two.

An unseen force is described as a deviation from random behavior. Notice William Hatcher's discussion of the second law of thermodynamics, which tells us what is probable and what is improbable. Random phenomena are the most likely to be probable configurations; however, improbable configurations are the least likely to be random. He formulates the second law of thermodynamics as follows:

The first statement is: Disorder is probable and order is improbable. Or, with a bit more elaboration: Order, structure, and complexity are improbable; while disorder, simplicity, and uniformity are probable. On a common-sense level we can see why this is true: for, order represents a few specific configurations; whereas, any logically possible configuration represents disorder. Let us pursue this point a bit further.

Let us now give the second, more formal statement of the law. We begin with a few definitions. By a physical system we mean any physical entity (object) or any collection of such entities. The entities that make up a physical system are its components, and any collection of components of a system forms a subsystem. An isolated physical system is one that receives no energy from outside the system. We now state: in any isolated physical system, disorder will increase. Moreover, if the system remains isolated, then disorder in the system will increase until the state known as maximum entropy or total disorder is attained. This is a stable state of the system in that, once attained, no further change will occur unless energy is furnished to the system from the outside, in some appropriate manner. Informally stated: Any system degenerates towards disorder if “left to itself.”

Then Hatcher proceeds to give two examples:

(1) the Brownian motion of air molecules in a closed room

One opens a bottle of perfume. The perfume disseminates uniformly throughout the room by the Brownian motion of air molecules. Initially the perfume inside the bottle represents order, but, when the bottle is opened, the perfume degenerates towards disorder. This random process is explained by Brownian motion. Modifying the experiment with increased heat leads to a speedier process of disorder.

(2) Photosynthesis in a leaved plant. In this case the energy input increases order.

Physical systems are going three ways:

(1) Some are evolving from less probable to more probable states

(2) Some are (more or less) static or stable

(3) And some are evolving from more probable to less probable states

Hatcher asserts number three cannot be the result of random processes. Since human beings are the most complex physical system in the known universe, we must conclude human beings are the least likely to be the result of random processes.

. . . the process of evolution was a process of complexification, of moving from relative simplicity and disorder towards relative complexity and order. It was therefore a process of moving from more probable configurations towards less probable configurations . . . invertebrate animal life could not have appeared earlier than about 600 million years ago. Thus, the process of evolution, from one-celled animals to the emergence of the mature human being (about 50,000 years ago), took no longer than 600 million years, which, from the geological perspective, is a fairly short time-span. This shows that there was no time for anything like an “unlimited” or “open-ended” experimentation in evolution. Moreover, it is estimated that roughly a thousand species intervened between the appearance of one-celled organisms and the mature human being. In each case, the transition from one species to another was a process leading from a lower (and therefore more probable) to a higher (and thus less probable) configuration. Finally, the evidence from the fossil record consistently shows that evolution was not a smooth, gradual process. Rather, there were long periods of stasis and stability (the so-called plateaus), punctuated by much shorter periods of rapid change (towards complexification).

Thus, evolution is clearly an example of a process that exhibits a significant, persistent deviation from randomness. Within a specified and limited time-frame, there was a persistent and recurrent movement from more probable to less probable configurations. It is therefore unscientific and irrational to attribute this process to chance. Indeed, just the transition from one species to the next could, if left to chance, take about as long as the lifespan of the earth itself, and to account for the whole evolutionary process we would have to multiply this figure by a thousand, yielding a figure much greater than the estimated lifespan of the entire universe (from the “beginning” until the present).

In the light of these considerations, we have a scientific right—indeed we are compelled by the logic of scientific methodology—to conclude that the process of evolution is the result of the action of some unobservable force.
 
There can be no scientific proof of God - the very suggestion is an oxymoron.

Okay. I can agree with you on that. Thanks for your comment. I just noticed another person commented on the website's blog and said the same thing: he says Hatcher is making an "overstatement." I think it could be considered a proof, but not a scientific one.
 
Indeed randomness is a critical part of the evolutionary process. If a random genetic mutation gives an individual of a species a competitive advantage for survival, that individual is more likely to survive and propagate its genes. Over time, this simple phenomena is known as evolution. If there were no random mutations, there would be no evolution.

Is an arms race random? Richard Dawkins says an arms race isn't random. I think there are patterns we have yet to discover. What can lead to the escalator phenomena we see?

Robert Wright claims to have discovered a directional pattern in evolution with nonzero logic. The idea that evolution is entirely random is not true.
 
You disagree with more sections than the last two.

I probably didn't read the article as thoroughly as you did as I quickly got the point that he has a solution "divine intervention as unseen force driving evolution" and he is looking for data to support his conclusion. He has an agenda he is obviously pushing, which generally is not the best approach to science as it biases the observer of the scientific phenomenon. That is why scientific studies are "double-blind" so as to reduce bias.

The data on evolution that I have seen does not support any kind of divine intervention. This article you reference is more philosophical and less scientific.

For example, statistics on sickle cell anemia and lactose intolerance are examples of modern data that support evolution/natural selection in humans. Please explain to me how sickle cell anemia or lactose intolerance are a result of divine guidance or an "invisible force" and not a result of genetic mutation and natural selection.
 
Is an arms race random? Richard Dawkins says an arms race isn't random. I think there are patterns we have yet to discover. What can lead to the escalator phenomena we see?

Have you read Guns, Germs, and Steel? It should answer all your questions about arms races, starting from primitive times through modern days. I read your article, now your turn to read mine :)
 
The idea that evolution is entirely random is not true.

What is your definition of random? Who said evolution is entirely random? Evolution as "random" or "not random" does not prove divine intervention in the evolutionary process. Even though evolution is taking place and things are seemingly more orderly, the law of thermodynamics still applies as entropy is increasing. Radarmark addressed this very question in a recent post on page 2. For example, we are evolving as a species, but fossil fuel energy is being used up, increasing entropy. And the nuclear fusion taking place in the sun (the source of most of our energy on earth) is an example of increasing entropy - one day the potential energy of the sun will be all used up and life on earth will likely cease to exist.

Evolution is not entirely random as there are many variables that affect it. You cannot isolate evolution as an independent variable. Genetic mutations do occur somewhat at random (although they can also be affected by the environment; hot/cold, etc). From there evolution is influenced by multiple environmental factors that drive natural selection. Survival of the fittest in their changing environment. Nature, if you will. If that's what you want to call the invisible force, then I would agree with you: evolution is indeed driven by an invisible force, Mother Nature, the combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. Seems like a simpler solution and therefore more likely (per Occam's Razor) than your divine intervention philosophy.
 
\The data on evolution that I have seen does not support any kind of divine intervention. This article you reference is more philosophical and less scientific.

Nobody is arguing for divine intervention. No laws have been broken. No miracle has happened.

For example, statistics on sickle cell anemia and lactose intolerance are examples of modern data that support evolution/natural selection in humans. Please explain to me how sickle cell anemia or lactose intolerance are a result of divine guidance or an "invisible force" and not a result of genetic mutation and natural selection.

Every example you list is from the perspective of a short period time frame. For example, we might see retrogression, imperfect designs (such as sickle cell anemia), and so on, making evolution look like a "sprawling bush," to borrow a phrase from Ian Barbour. However, once you broaden your time frame, you will see awareness and complexity has increased in organisms. The ability to process information increases. In short human being are vastly more advanced than an amoeba. Evolution seems to be an intricate dance between chance and law. You can downplay law all you want, but it's there. Law and chance are two sides of one coin. Chance can be used to further purposes. Flip a coin. Seek random samples in making representative surveys. Shuffle cards and use your skill to win. They don't have to be in contradiction, as you seem to think, Iowaguy.

Have you read Guns, Germs, and Steel? It should answer all your questions about arms races, starting from primitive times through modern days. I read your article, now your turn to read mine

Well, I asked the question to find out what you know. I would love to read it in the future, but I currently don't have the time to read the entire book. At least I know your source of information on arms races. I will read an article if you have one or short essay.

Arms races can also be found in Robert Wrights discussion of non-random walks:

Consider, again, the bombardier beetle. Since there was a time when beetles didn’t exist, there must have been a time when no animals were specially adapted to kill and eat them. Then beetles came along. Then various animals did acquire, by natural selection, the means to kill and eat them. This expansion of behavioral repertoire, itself a growth in complexity, spurred a response: the bombardier beetle’s bombardieresque qualities—a counter-growth in complexity. Thus does complexity breed complexity.

One might expect that, given long enough, beetle predators will undergo a counter-counter-growth in complexity, some way to neutralize the beetle’s noxious spray. In fact, they already have. Skunks and one species of mice, the biologists James Gould (no relation) and William Keeton have written, “have evolved specialized innate behavior patterns that cause the spray to be discharged harmlessly, and they can then eat the beetles.” Until the next round of innovation, at least.

The technical term for this dynamic is the same as the nontechnical term: an “arms race.” Over the past two decades, various prominent biologists—Richard Dawkins, John Tyler Bonner—have noted how arms races favor the evolution of complexity. Gould, in the course of a two-volume meditation on the evolution of complexity, doesn’t mention the phenomenon.

Finding evidence of arms races in the fossil record is tricky. But one venturesome scientist methodically measured the remnants of various mammalian lineages spanning tens of millions of years and found a suggestive pattern. In North America, the “relative brain size” of carnivorous mammals—brain size corrected for body size— showed a strong tendency to grow over time. And so did the relative brain size of the herbivorous mammals that were their prey. Meanwhile, comparable South American herbivores, which faced no predators, showed almost no growth in relative brain size. Apparently ongoing species—against-species duels are conducive to progress.

Arms races can happen within species, not just between them. Ever spend months observing a chimpanzee colony in painstaking detail? A few primatologists have. The male chimps, it turns out, spend lots of time scheming to top each other. They form coalitions that, on attaining political dominance, get special sexual access to ovulating females—at the great Darwinian expense of less successful coalitions. So males with genes conducive to political savviness should on aver­age get the most genes into the next generation, raising the average level of savviness. And the savvier the average chimp, the savvier chimps have to be to excel in the next round. And so on: an arms race in savviness—that is, an arms race in behavioral flexibility. There’s little doubt that this dynamic has helped make chimps as smart as they are, and there’s no clear reason why the process should stop where it is now.

Meanwhile, female chimps also exhibit political skills, of a somewhat different sort, that raise the survival prospects for their young. Here, too, genes for savviness should in theory not only prevail and fill the gene pool, but, having prevailed, create selective pressure for yet more savviness. It would always pay female chimps to be smarter than average, and, for that very reason, the average would keep rising. Positive feedback.

Natural selection, as described by Gould, has no room for this sort of directional dynamic. “Natural selection talks only about ‘adapta­tion to changing local environments,’he writes. And “the sequence of local environments in any one place should be effectively random through geological time—the seas come in and the seas go out, the weather gets colder, then hotter, etc. If organisms are tracking local environments by natural selection, then their evolutionary history should be effectively random as well.” This would be good logic if environments consisted entirely of seas and air. But in the real world, a living thing’s environment consists largely of—mostly of—other living things: things it eats, things that eat it, not to mention members of its own species that compete with it and consort with it. And no one—not even Gould—denies that the average complexity of all species constituting this organic environment tends to grow. So the sequence of environments isn’t “effectively random” over time; there is a trend toward environmental complexity.

And it wouldn’t matter if we assumed, along with Gould, that back at the dawn of life the growth in average complexity was wholly random, like the stumbling drunk’s path. The fact would remain that, for whatever reason, environmental complexity started to grow. Species in “tracking” this growth of complexity, can’t be described as stumbling around randomly. Their evolutionary change is, by Gould’s own definition, directional. And, since they are themselves part of the environment for other species, the process is self—reinforcing. More positive feedback.

A number of evolutionists have argued that if you look at a colony of chimps (our nearest living relatives), you can see some of the social dynamics that pushed our own ape ancestors in our direction, toward greater intelligence. Probably so. In any event, some non—random forces seem to have done the pushing. To the extent that we can judge from an imperfect fossil record, the growth in brain size—from Australopithe­cus africanus to Homo habilis to Homo erectus to early Homo sapiens to modern Homo sapiens—is brisk, with no signs of backtracking and lit­tle in the way of pauses. It looks for all the world like 3 million years of pretty persistent brain expansion.

How does Gould explain this trend? Not readily. The only explana­tion his worldview would seem to allow is a long series of lucky coin flips—the most serendipitous drunken walk in the history of drinking. Indeed, luck of this caliber might be enough to make you sus­pect that the coin flips were divinely guided! It’s no surprise that the creationist literature contains many approving citations of Gould’s work. If his view of natural selection were correct, I would be a cre­ationist, too; natural selection would not be a plausible means of human creation—at least, not of such rapid human creation.

And it isn’t just our ancestors that, in Gould’s scheme, were so lucky Mammalian lineages broadly exhibit a movement toward braininess. True, individual species can spend a long time without getting noticeably smarter. But examples of mammals—or for that matter multicellular creatures in general—evolving toward less braininess are vanishingly rare. What a lucky bunch of drunks animals are!

 
Anahu - thanks for the Nonzero link, it's an interesting read though I disagree with some of his points. Let's try to first establish some common ground so we can discuss the points we disagree on.

Do you agree with the following timeline of evolution on earth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

The high points for me are that life on this planet likely started as a single-cell organism 3.8 billion years ago and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. And that the genus homo has been on the planet 2.5 million years, and modern humans 200,000 years.

Agreed?
 
A couple of comments: first never ask a believer in the Bible as the Word of God for proof, it is a meaningless statement to them. Second of all, the 1921 Abdu’l-Bahá article is strongly reminiscent of Bergson's work. In the last 30 years Chaos, Complexity Theory, The Physics of Information, and the work of Prigogone have gone along way towards proving the existence of a "fifth force" is not required. This is not really addresssed directly in the article. Bob Laughlin and a few other physicists point out that there are really outstnading questions surrounding "self-organization" (see his "A Different Universe" or his Nobel Speech). but his arguements are well beyond Abdu’l-Bahá's.

Pax et amore vincunt omnia, radarmark.
 

I agree.

He has a classic case of a "solution that is looking for a problem." True science looks at a given problem and tries to find the simplest plausible explanation, given the data. The simplest explanation for evolution is genetic mutation & natural selection, not divine intervention.

I disagree with the above. The problem is this: the existence of human beings, the most complex physical system in the known universe. If you don't think that is a problem to solve, I don't know what is.

We answer the problem by giving a hypothesis for our existence, an unknown force.

I'm familiar with the theory of natural selection; however, does it adequately explain all the phenomena we see in nature? I think natural selection is true, but I think a picture most paint is an oversimplification.

I wish I had more time to read. Sigh. I wish to read Beyond Natural Selection by Robert G. Wesson.

Beyond Natural Selection - The MIT Press

In a review of Wesson's book online, I found exactly the words I've been looking for to describe how I see this problem of oversimplification:

Natural selection is to the biological sciences what the Newtonian mechanistic universe was to physics until the theory of relativity came along.

In At Home in the Universe, another work I need to read, Kauffman writes:

“Since Darwin, we turn to a single, singular force, Natural Selection, which we might well capitalize as though it were the new deity. Random variation, selection-sifting. Without it, we reason, there would be nothing but incoherent disorder. I shall argue in this book that this idea is wrong. For, as we shall see, the emerging sciences of complexity begin to suggest that the order is not all accidental, that vast veins of spontaneous order lie at hand. Laws of complexity spontaneously generate much of the order of the natural world. It is only then that selection comes into play, further molding and refining.”

That's why I've been offering examples of directional evolution.

Radar is on the mark:

In the last 30 years Chaos, Complexity Theory, The Physics of Information, and the work of Prigogone have gone along way towards proving the existence of a "fifth force" is not required. This is not really addresssed directly in the article. Bob Laughlin and a few other physicists point out that there are really outstnading questions surrounding "self-organization" (see his "A Different Universe" or his Nobel Speech). but his arguements are well beyond Abdu’l-Bahá's.

Hmm . . . I'll need to investigate Prigogone (who I have seen referenced in other works). Could be debateable. At least Kauffman appears to think so . . .

http://www.amazon.com/At-Home-Unive...1303/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315197968&sr=8-1
 
I wish I had more time to read. Sigh.

I agree, it's tough sometimes deciding which of the thousands of books out there to read, many different paths of inquiry to take. With each new philosophical/religious/scientific work I read I seem to add 2 new books to my reading list! Choosing which works to read is kind of its own evolutionary path :)

Regarding evolution/natural selection, we both agree on a basic timeline. And we both agree that genetic mutation and natural selection are variables affecting evolution. You seem to think that genetic mutation/natural selection alone can't account for many evolved lifeforms; that there is some "unknown force" at work with evolution, which favors a more complex evolutionary outcome and better explains directional evolution. But you don't consider this force to be any sort of divine guidance, that it doesn't break the laws of physics.

I will try to keep an open mind to that possibility, as I too am amazed at some of nature's complexity. And I don't think we have yet unlocked all the mysteries of the universe, there likely remain scientific discoveries of many types that humans will uncover in the future.

But, with my scientific background, I try to be very careful not to over-reach with my conclusions. I always try to apply Occam's Razor to any given situation to be sure I'm not making the "solution" or "explanation" more complex than it needs to be. Or that my personal bias is not affecting my conclusions (as much as that is possible).

Let's further consider your hypothesis of an unknown force (like mentioned in the article), analogous to gravity, that could better explain some of evolution's complexity. If such a force existed, do you think it would be consistent across our solar system? And across the entire universe, like gravity is?

Let's say hypothetically that a future space mission digs deep into Mars or some other planet and brings back a few fossils, proving the existence of previous life on that planet. How would your theory then apply? As you agree life on earth started with a single-cell organism and evolved into humans, would a single-cell organism on another planet also evolve into a highly advanced lifeform if it was subject to your "unknown force driving complexity" for 3.8 billion years? Why or why not?
 
Let's say hypothetically that a future space mission digs deep into Mars or some other planet and brings back a few fossils, proving the existence of previous life on that planet. How would your theory then apply? As you agree life on earth started with a single-cell organism and evolved into humans, would a single-cell organism on another planet also evolve into a highly advanced lifeform if it was subject to your "unknown force driving complexity" for 3.8 billion years? Why or why not?
Long ago I had read a quote from some Bishop... I wish I could find it, he was questioned about potential evidence of life on mars, or finding alien life and what that would do to his understandings...his response was along the lines of, 'We aren't saying the garden of eden was on earth'

Again, I wish I could find that again.
 
Kauffman discusses Prigogone in his many works somewhere. Prigogone is a brilliant teacher and lecturer, but his books are very roundabout. Maybe the best way to learn about Prigogone is surfing Google Scholar for his name and complexity or emergence (his big topic).

Something is lacking, Bergson's "elan vital" was one attempt (and a good place to start). I am no expert in this field, but it appears that between "Information Physics" (another new discipline) and the math of Catastrophe-Chaos-Complexity and "emergence theory" are onto something which at the least may be the equivalent of a fifth force.

The easiest way I know of to address this is there is a counterpoint to the entropy of the second law of thermodynamics. But like the second law, it is not a force on matter (like electromagnitism). Rather there is a counter-tendency which is emergent (it happens due to basic laws and forces but only actualizes when there are a great number of items involved).

Penrose's new book and Robert Laughlin's are good high-level references, but unless you are a scientist and mathematician, they are diffucult. Reviews of them or discussions of them on science blogs would be better than my explanation.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt, radarmark
 
directional pattern in evolution...The idea that evolution is entirely random is not true.

Ahanu, I was thinking more about this topic on a recent backpacking trip, and thought about another possible "falsifier" for your hypothesis (besides my earlier suggestion of hypothetical life on another planet that hadn't progressed much past single-cell life despite billions of years of evolution).

Are you familiar with the concept of Reverse Darwinism? The smartest humans are having fewer offspring while other humans (I'm trying not to disparage) are having lots of offspring. Natural selection as we've known it for the last 200,000 years of human life has been reversed and is now favoring the propagation of genes of the "weak" instead of the "strong" due to governmental programs, societal values, etc.

Hypotheticaly speaking, if Reverse Darwinism were scientifically proven to be occuring in our current lifetimes, with average human IQ's decreasing and brains getting less complex, would that negate your directional evolution, "unknown force driving complexity" theory?

Ironically, your theory will actually be stronger (scientifically speaking) as you more accurately define what could falsify it. If nothing can falsify it then it's not scientific to begin with...

IG
 
Back
Top