Was Evolution the Greatest Theory Ever?

There are no good gravitational theories. No, seriously! Physics can describe gravity but they don’t know what it is – they have found neither gravitons nor gravity waves, and there is a complete breakdown between relativistic and quantum gravity.

HOWEVER, yeah, there’s a theory that explains more than evolution: dissipative structures theory. Because it explains evolution. 😉

I don’t know if you want to call it a theory, but the periodic table is so damn useful I have to throw it out there. The laws of thermodynamics are also good, especially since they’re a fundamental part of both physics and chemistry.

Obviously it’s hard to quantify these things… but I think heliocentrism gives evolution a run for its money. It doesn’t just explain the apparent movement of the stars and planets. It’s the beginning of the entire science of modern astronomy, and our understanding of the earth as one planet among billions, orbiting one star among billions, in one galaxy among billions — instead of thinking of it as the center of everything.

Evolution is high on the list, though.

The scenario he’s giving is too oversimplified to answer the question you’re asking, Hemant. Natural selection’s explanatory power only exists in conjunction with several other theories, most prominently the “central dogmas” of genetics and such. Also, how do we quantify “that which it explains”? In terms of sheer size? In that case, life is minuscule and cosmological theories like the Big Bang win hands down. Or should we quantify it in terms of the number of entities whose properties are explained? But then quantum mechanics wins, because there are more subatomic particles than there are anything else. Or should we quantify it in terms of number of “facts” to explain? But how do we divide these up? Or in terms of “complexity” of the phenomena to be explained? But how do we defined complexity? Is a biological system more or less complex than the physics of a black hole?

Trying to compare explanatory power across scientific disciplines might be along the lines of asking, “Who’s better—Albert Einstein or Thomas Jefferson?”

That said, Dawkins is right in using explanatory power within the scope of biological phenomena that need to be explained to show why evolution is an immensely better theory than creationism. I think that’s a much better standard to use than “falsifiability”, because as many philosophers have pointed out, falsifiability is a slippery concept. Evolution beats creationism because it has enormous amounts of explanatory power based on very few assumptions, and is entirely consistent with everything else we know from chemistry, genetics, geology, physics, etc. Creationism, on the other hand, requires that one make highly implausible assumptions about the nature of the whole universe, contradicts many of the things known from other disciplines, and since it makes no definite commitments to the way the evidence would be if the proposed theory were true, it can only yield explanations post hoc.

I’m going to vote for Archimedes’ theory that mathematics can be used to make predictions about the physical world. As far as bang for buck goes, I think that beats (and, in a sense, subsumes) evolution.

Not only is it the explanation for life on this planet, it is the only theory so far suggested that could, even in principle, explain life on any planet.

I don’t like this quote, it should specifically refer to an explanation for the variety of life on this planet as ID/creationist types will automatically assume it is referring to origins. I notice lots of scientists getting muddled up with this as well, confusing evolution and abiogenesis. Might be nit-picking but it causes unnecessary arguments!

Fully agree with the rest of the post though, I really can’t think of any other theory more powerful in Dawkins’ sense of the word. Gives you a cosy glow thinking about it 🙂

What I am a little confused about in this discussion is the word “assumptions”. What assumptions are made in the theory of evolution? It’s my favourite theory and I don’t even know. Nor could I say what assumptions are made in any of the physical theories above. Instinctively I would say that the assumption is naturalism, for all of them! Scientific theories are all based in the idea that the world is natural and can be studied. Everything else springs from that. And that’s definitely a much simpler assumption than theism.

Cannonball – I think you’re the one confusing “explaining life” with “explaining abiogenesis. When I (as a biologist-in-training) read that evolution “explains life”, I don’t interpret it to mean “explains the origin of life” – I interpret it to mean that it actually explains LIFE. All of it. Dobzhansky said it best – “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Before evolutionary theory, biology was a loose collection of facts pertaining to living organisms. With evolutionary theory, these facts can all be collected in a meaningful way – explained.

Evolution theory has been one of the most courageous theories because of the entrenched religious resistance. Many of the other theories in physical sciences were not as courageous because they didn’t challenge people’s pre-conceived notions. (The heliocentric theory being an exception, of course).

I’d also like to echo that the emerging theory of “dissipating structures” will be very important… that matter tends to “self organize” (If you will) in order to dissipate the most energy… And life (as a phenomena) is a very effective way to dissipate energy. If this theory is true, then life may be quite wide-spread in the universe.

That was one of the stupidest articles I’ve ever read. How do you quantify “that which it explains?” Or “that which it needs to assume … ?” In the words of Dawkins himself, “You don’t have to be a mathematician to see that this is ridiculous.”

One would think that if Dawkins is asking for people to come up with an explanation ratio larger than Darwin’s, that he would at least tell us what Darwin’s explanation ratio is!

The theory that there is no god.

That sounds more like a courageous person than a courageous theory to me.

The theory of evolution has no practical application.

BWAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

I guess medicine isn’t a practical application. Nor agriculture.

*blinks* Evolution has no . . . practical . . . application. Oh, dear.

And there is no theory of electricity. What electricity is is hotly debated in physics circles.

It seems that the theory of evolution is only valid if and only if you a make an assumption that the Laws physics holds true. Darwin’s theory describes the biochemical process which all fundamentally operate on a set of physical laws.