Science/Religion and Evolution of Knowledge

Karl Popper argues that scientific knowledge can only be considered scientific, if the ultimate result is falsifiable. In light of such a claim, we must also consider the fact that each and every knowledge claim, is a product of mankind, and the product can only be as good as those who make it. Considering the limitations we possess, perception being one of the most obvious, the theories by which we have associated the origin of life on earth, are susceptible to scrutiny.
Although, quintessentially, the nature of the pseudoscientific Genesis viewpoint and the stressed ‘fact’ of evolution have originated from the same beings, the essence of these so called ‘theories’ is based upon one thing, faith. The primary constituents of the Darwinian theory of evolution are based upon observation, molding of data, analysis and the conclusive theory. Of course, the scientific method is used here to enshroud the truth behind that theory. It hides the fact that an assumption, however slight it maybe, is being made in linking these two species of, finches, for example. Additionally, it also relates to the fact that, in nature, mankind tends to look for logical relationships between two objects, such as, in the gathered fossil evidence of recent times. We tend to overlook the fact that even though A preceded B, A did not necessarily cause B. This exemplifies that even some of the most fact based evidences of our time can be rendered useless, and is, clearly, falsifiable. The major benefit of the Darwinian theory of evolution is the factual evidence that supports it. Generally speaking, seeing is believing, and with such a multitude of facts behind the theory, people overlook that tiny leap of faith made in the beginning, and focus on the claims formulated ultimately.
Similarly, the theory proposed by the Book of Genesis of the Old Testament, is largely based on this concept of faith, and more distinctly, belief. In consideration of its religious background, Genesis is based purely on faith, clearly demonstrated by the fact that there has been no factual evidence discovered to support the fact that the Earth was constructed in seven ‘days.’ A limitation of Genesis, however, is in its use of the word days. This may have been a result of a point mutation in the transcribing and transliteration process, but, nonetheless, it serves as a lucid error that can often be exploited during the raging debates occurring between the Creationists and Evolutionists of the day. The major weakness behind the Creationist theory is that it’s not falsifiable, and by definition does not have to be, but it’s based purely on knowledge by authority, and, arguably, intuition. This is simply because without aforementioned knowledge of the subject of God, and without the scientific claims of the day, we would all tend to devote the occurrences of the systems around us, to a more-highly developed source, an Intelligence being of some sort. People, generally speaking, tend to question beliefs that are not determined by a reason of some sort, or questions that have too many different answers. One example pertaining to the fact that people of the Sikh religion are not permitted to cut their hair, but with no sustainable reason as to why they can’t cut their hair, and in light of the “conformity” issue, Sikhs of that day have ignored this restriction. Both of these theories confirm the same occurrence, that we originated, but they differ in the ‘why,’ and therefore, exemplify the evolution of knowledge itself.
Genesis, the first of the four knowledge claims in accordance to this specific topic, is based, primarily, on faith and belief. As the Enlightenment procured, and the fundamental beliefs of the scientific realm were formalized, the scientific method became a medium from which scientists could derive a hypothesis, and ultimately, a theory. Lamarck’s theory, more commonly known for its colloquial terminology: acquired characteristics, proposed that the collective desire to change to more suitably fit the environment, progressively altered the gene pool of that population. Following this theory, both Wallace and Darwin (working independently, but coming to the same conclusion) recognized several characteristics of population genetics that Lamarck hadn’t. Perhaps the best way to surmise the Darwin-Wallace theory is “survival of the fittest,” with the terminology ‘fittest’ meaning most suited to that environment. Both of these esteemed scientists noticed the flaws behind Lamarck’s theory, which was published a century before, and proposed an alternative theory, which, according to observation, proved more promising than the desire to change. As is quite clearly portrayed here, the alternative theories, through the process of falsification, clear the path for the evolution of this specific topic, whereas in other instances, other factors may also play a role in selecting the final, partially ubiquitous, theory.
As with every issue, the strengths and weaknesses are most commonly noted for the purposes of entertaining the need to find something ‘wrong’ with it. This is why the Creationist-Evolutionist debate is a continuing generational conflict. The falsification processes of all of these ‘theories’ are due to the desire to falsify these ‘theories,’ and this therefore, makes this more of an issue of personal involvement, rather than of collective debate. The prevalence of these four solutions to the one problem, however, gives insight into how exactly we, as the human race, develop our ideas and the process of mental evolution. The values and limitations of knowledge claims provide us with reasoning for which we actually develop an alternative means of approaching the issue, and the ultimate decisions we make in the evolutionary processes that we undertake as well.