The battle between the Creationists and the Evolutionists over which model is correct is one that has lasted for decades now. The Creationists try to dispel the Evolution theory by proposing that it is not a scientific theory. They have based their argument on a method of distinguishing science from pseudo-science developed by Sir Karl Popper called the Criterion of Falsification. However, this method is severely flawed. Philip Kitcher, one of the strongest opponents of the Creation model, discussed the inappropriateness of this technique in his book "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism". As an alternative, he proposed another method of distinguishing actual science from pseudo-science, an improved version of the criterion of Falsification. His method has three criteria, independent testability, unification, and fecundity, and is much more comprehensive than Popper's criterion. Kitcher's method of distinguishing science from pseudo-science is more suitable and also more accurate than the criterion of Falsification produced by Popper.
The major flaw in Popper's criterion of Falsifiability is that it does not take into account that scientific theories and hypotheses are tested in large numbers and not separately. Popper's criterion of Falsifiability states that if a theory does not have any observational consequences or if it is not falsified, then the theory is not considered to be science. Kitcher uses Newtonian mechanics as an example in his book to refute this notion. He basically says that according to Newtonian mechanics, an apple on a tree should fall to the ground due to the gravitational pull. However, if it doesn't, it does not mean that any of the Newtonian theories are falsified. One can just simply assume that there is another force acting against the gravitational pull, one that is able to overcome it, causing the apple to not fall. When Popper's criterion of Falsification is applied to this situation, Newtonian mechanics would be labeled as unfalsifiable, and consequentially, considered a pseudo-science.
