Epistemological objections to Darwinian evolution

First Point: The strength of empirical science lies in observation and induction. For a hypothesis to be tested empirically, it must either be observable or grounded in phenomena that are directly analogous to what we observe (e.g., atomic analogy).

َAnd macro-evolution and the origin of life lack direct analogs in the observable world. Therefore, conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning in these areas are speculative and lack the robust empirical foundation found in other scientific domains. relying on patterns observed in microevolution (small changes within species) and extrapolating them to macroevolution (the emergence of entirely new species) is philosophically problematic. This inductive leap from micro to macro phenomena assumes that what holds on a small scale will apply on a much larger scale, but this assumption is not guaranteed. 

Knowledge either stems from induction or deduction, and evolution is supported by neither. Hence, it cannot be proven. As Adam Sedgwick, one of the founders of modern geology, once stated: "But I must begin by saying that Darwin's theory is not inductive; it is not based on a series of acknowledged facts that lead to a general conclusion, nor is it logically derived from facts. As it was said in the past, I view this theory as a great pyramid resting on its apex (i.e., standing on its head)".

Quoted in David L. Hull, Darwin and His Critics: The Reception of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by the Scientific Community (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 155–170.

Second Point: The rational basis of inductive reasoning necessitates a defined spatial and temporal frame. Evolutionary events, by definition, lie outside of this observable frame, extending over millions of years. Thus, using current observations to make inferences about these ancient events is problematic.

This is clarified by the fact that the rationality of induction stems from our cumulative experience of particular instances within a defined space and time, allowing us to discern patterns and causal regularities within this framework. This is how the mind can extend these patterns to make future predictions.

For example, imagine you live in a region where all the swans you've ever seen are white. Every white swan you've observed falls under what you would call "instances" After accumulating numerous observations over time, you might conclude, "All swans in our area are white." But you cannot confidently assert, "Swans in our area have always been white!" Similarly, why should we base the evolutionary model on current inductions when there is no rational basis to extend today’s laws to events that occurred millions of years ago?

Third Point: The Inapplicability of Falsifiability to Evolutionary Theory

Evolution, as posited within the framework of inference to the best explanation, eludes empirical falsification under Popper’s criterion. 

In fact, Evolution is imposible to subject to direct falsification because of its retrospective nature. It deals with events that occurred long ago and across vast timescales, making it imposible to design experiments that could definitively disprove its core propositions.

Scientific theories typically commence with a hypothesis from which consequences are derived. If these consequences correspond to empirical reality, the theory is corroborated; if they do not, it is refuted. Hence, the central proposition of evolutionary theory, by its very nature, is not amenable to direct experimental verification.

Furthermore, the auxiliary hypotheses associated with evolutionary theory lack sufficient predictive specificity power, meaning that it fails to generate precise consequences whose contradiction could serve as grounds for falsification. In practice, no empirical observation is immune to reinterpretation within the evolutionary framework, even if it necessitates the modification or expansion of the model to accommodate the data. This flexibility effectively insulates the theory from falsification, allowing it to adapt to empirical findings without relinquishing its core premise.

Rather than providing a clear framework that can be tested and falsified, evolutionary theory has the capacity to adapt post hoc to fit new data. This adaptability means that almost any empirical observation can be reconciled with the theory, thereby insulating it from falsification. 

A clear example of this phenomenon is found in the treatment of the fossil record. When paleontological discoveries appeared to conflict with evolutionary expectations, proponents did not entertain the possibility of abandoning the theory, even though it originally stood as a hypothesis—comparable, in its speculative nature, to religious belief. Instead, the theory was adjusted post hoc through auxiliary constructs (e.g., punctuated equilibrium to explain gaps in the fossil record) without challenging the fundamental assumptions of evolution.

Consequently, there is little in the fossil record that unequivocally supports the foundational claims of evolutionary theory. The empirical data is reinterpreted in such a way as to be consistent with the theory—what philosophers of science term "theory-laden observations"—, and fossils cannot be definitively regarded as transitional forms without presupposing the truth of the evolutionary paradigm itself.

If the foundational theory is not underpinned by robust empirical evidence, and its auxiliary hypotheses do not yield verifiable predictions, what remains of its scientific legitimacy?

Fourth Point: The challenge of underdetermination (this is a concession for the sake of argument, even though the validity of the inquiry itself is already rejected). Genetic similarities or patterns in the fossil record could equally well support alternative models like intelligent design or guided evolution (e.g., The existence of genetic similarities between species does not inherently favor evolution over design —it could equally be viewed as the result of a common designer applying similar mechanisms across different organisms—). There is nothing inherent in these pieces of evidence that compels us to consider evolution the best explanation. There is no rational basis for favoring evolution over other theories, and Darwin's theory has only gained prominence in Western academia due to the widespread prevalence of naturalism among them.