How much faith can one put in a theory? Scientists actually enjoy certain falsifications in old theories because it makes their research seem more relevant. However, the falsifications in which they enjoy are a mere poke here and there at a particular theory without tearing the whole thing down. Recent falsifications include galaxy growth…
“Galaxies are thought to develop by the gravitational attraction between and merger of smaller ‘sub-galaxies’, a process that standard cosmological ideas suggest should be ongoing, says the Royal Astronomical Society.”
“But new data from a team of scientists from Liverpool John Moores University directly challenges this idea, suggesting that the growth of some of the most massive objects stopped 7 billion years ago when the Universe was half its present age.”
This suggests something serious and questions what cosmologists know…“The lack of growth of the most massive galaxies is a major challenge to current models of the formation and evolution of large scale structure in the Universe,” commented Claire Burke, team member. “Our work suggests that cosmologists appear to lack some of the crucial ingredients they need to understand how galaxies evolved from the distant past to the present day.”
Next is a astronomical theory which is about 100 years old. The University of Michigan has drilled some holes into it. The von Zeipel law, “has been used for the better part of a century to predict the difference in surface gravity, brightness and temperature between a rapidly rotating star’s poles and its equator.”
Researchers discovered that the data from Regulus doesn’t fit the theory. “It is surprising to me that von Zeipel’s law has been adopted in astronomy for such a long time with so little solid observational evidence.” Not surprising here, in fact as long as its considered approved by the majority of government paid scientists, then the lack of solid observational evidence is not a significant factor that would overturn a proposal from becoming a theory. By normal scientific standards, Zeiplel’s law should have been an hypothesis at best, not a theory.
Willard Quine was correct in his observation that when faced with potentially falsifying data to a particular theory, scientists often absorb the shocks into their “web of belief” without changing the web. When a paradigm gets blown out of the water in one area of science, there are ramifications for others, depending on how foundational it was.
Darwinism is a “web of belief” built around an array of complex stories. Fitness is proof of evolution they say, then in some cases they say lack of fitness, no matter what direction the evidence shows, the story of Darwinism comes up with its supporters. The original web or framework has disappeared long ago as a result of new data falsifying it.