Darwinism Falsified in Science Long Ago?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Agauger

I think it is incorrect to say Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism which includes the modern synthesis) was falsified. You yourself just said positive selection still had a role to play, as does mutation, of course. You could say neo-Darwinism was “superceded by” or “expanded to include”, but not falsified. Rhetorically of course it is more effective to say Behe is arguing against a theory that has been falsified. It’s not as impressive to say he is out of date.

Of course it is rhetorically stronger to say it is falsified, and you can’t fault me for using strong rhetoric.

What I can say is that neo-Darwinism as defined by Behe and the DI was FALSIFIED a long time ago. Based on an overwhelming amount of information it was shown to be an insufficient explanation for evolutionary change. Then it was SUPERCEDED by an extended synthesis (not the EES) that continues to this day.

The analogy to General Relativity and Newtonian Physics is correct. In some senses, the precise senses relevant to this situation, the evidence FALSIFIES Newtonian physics in important domains. The same is true for Darwinism. Just like Behe argues, knowledge of DNA FALSIFIES darwinism. The problem is that we already knew this. At some point he had to engage with the extended synthesis, and he has not done so in any of his three books.

You are right too that this is a rhetorically strong rebuttal of Behe. Thanks for the compliment. That is partly why it will objected to, even though it is 100% correct.