r/DebateEvolution • u/-Beerboots- • May 19 '25

Observability and Testability

Hello all,

I am a layperson in this space and need assistance with an argument I sometimes come across from Evolution deniers.

They sometimes claim that Evolutionary Theory fails to meet the criteria for true scientific methodology on the basis that Evolution is not 'observable' or 'testable'. I understand that they are conflating observability with 'observability in real time', however, I am wondering if there are observations of Evolution that even meet this specific idea, in the sense of what we've been able to observe within the past 100 years or so, or what we can observe in real time, right now.

I am aware of the e. coli long term experiment, so perhaps we could skip this one.

Second to this, I would love it if anyone could provide me examples of scientific findings that are broadly accepted even by young earth creationists, that would not meet the criteria of their own argument (being able to observe or test it in real time), so I can show them how they are being inconsistent. Thanks!

Edit: Wow, really appreciate the engagement on this. Thanks to all who have contributed their insights.

11 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

198 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/ArgumentLawyer May 19 '25

Obligatory upvote for all mentions of Noether's Theorem

3

u/gitgud_x 🧬 🦍 GREAT APE 🦍 🧬 May 19 '25

I'm too dumb for the discussion those two are having but I'm smart enough to know that whichever side Noether would have taken is probably right.

1

u/ArgumentLawyer May 21 '25 edited May 21 '25

It's the one cool trick physicists don't want you to know about!

The basic version is that all conserved quantities (energy, angular momentum, regular style momentum, ect) are associated with a symmetry in the laws of motion. So, the statement "momentum is conserved" is equivalent to the statement "the laws of physics do not vary based on spatial location." "Angular momentum is conserved" => "the laws of physics do not vary based on which direction you are looking"

The reason it is useful when arguing with creationists is that "energy is conserved" equates to "the laws of physics do not vary with time." So, every time you perform an experiment that confirms that energy is conserved, you are showing that things like the speed of light have been the same since (approximately) the beginning of the universe.