What does Professor Smith mean when he says that Darwinism is not a well-substantiated scientific theory? Natural selection provides predictions of transitive species that are well observed with a biochemical genetics, unknown to Darwin, explaining its mechanism.
I think scientistic dogma is rooted in the modern anopia to an plain and universal rational structure; a big bang producing energy and matter that self assembles into electrons, atoms, stars, planets and -- living beings. Some of which are conscious! not only of the universe, but of themselves and ask questions like 'who am I?'
The issue of Darwinism is not that it is unscientific and I can't believe this distinguished professor would say such a thing. Darwinism is problematic because it leaves behind an objectively falsifiable ethical theory holding survival of the fittest as a kind of moral good, by default that is, of any theophany.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nick_Bottom,
I like to try to keep my science on one side of a bright line and my ethics on the other side. Thus, I'm not sure Darwinian biology, rightly understood, includes any sort of ethical theory at all, let alone a defective one. I want as well to register a gripe about "Darwinism". There is "Darwinian biology" or, as real biologists think of it, simply "biology" or "evolutionary biology." Humanists tend to make scientific positions into ideologies by attaching an "ism" to the name. "Darwinism" is the name of an ideology, not an orientation in natural science. In physics ther is "relativity" (special or general), and not "Einsteinianism." when scientists or science writers write about "Einsteinian physics," they are speaking to, or for, the vulgar, and they alone.
Originally posted by Gestell: I like to try to keep my science on one side of a bright line and my ethics on the other side. Thus, I'm not sure Darwinian biology, rightly understood, includes any sort of ethical theory at all, let alone a defective one. I want as well to register a gripe about "Darwinism". There is "Darwinian biology" or, as real biologists think of it, simply "biology" or "evolutionary biology." Humanists tend to make scientific positions into ideologies by attaching an "ism" to the name. "Darwinism" is the name of an ideology, not an orientation in natural science. In physics ther is "relativity" (special or general), and not "Einsteinianism." when scientists or science writers write about "Einsteinian physics," they are speaking to, or for, the vulgar, and they alone.
Natural selection is an intelligible theory concerning how natural things succeed. If ethics is a just our choice and there is no unnatural sanction to the contrary, then the actions consonant with natural success are among the options available to us which we then may choose to call moral or right. It is in fact the choice made by many of us, over the past hundred centuries or so.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nick_Bottom,
