Re: Testing Darwinism

BHendrsn@kirk.microsys.net ("BHendrsn@kirk.microsys.net")
Thu, 16 Nov 1995 13:15:54 +0000

> This is why the current theory of gradual evolution is referred to as
> neo-Darwinism. Because Darwin knew nothing about genetics does not
> necessarily detract from his theory or from how genetics provides a place
> for natural selection to work. The history of science is rife with correct
> models made for the wrong reasons or supported by incomplete
> information--yet the earth still goes around the sun, and maybe there was a
> little bit of truth in vitalism.

Absolutely. Darwin recognized that there had to be some mechanism
that both passed on traits and permitted change within those traits.
The best explanation at the time was Lamarckianism, which, in time,
proved to be false. That's a perfect hallmark of science, it changes
as it grows and learns more.

The problem with Walter's statements stems from his perceptions of
the world, his worldview. His side demands that we start with
perfection and then work to understand and explain it. Science, on
the other hand, starts with our own ignorance and then seeks to learn
more and more about the world around us. Personally, I think that
science has more truth and support behind it, but that's just my
opinion, of course.

-Brian