Darwinism Falsified in Science Long Ago?

Yes, I’ve seen the list. There are a few hundred (?) papers that use the term “Darwinism”, most of them (all?) are outside the evolutionary science literature. Compare that with tens of thousands of papers in evolutionary science that use terms like “evolution”, “phylogeny”, “non-Darwinian”, and do not include the word Darwinism.

Look at some of the examples you give.

  1. The first one is Dawkins in a book, not the scientific literature. He also conflates modern evolutionary science with Darwinism, in error.

  2. Okasha is a specific of a new mechanism of group selection, and has little to do with the meaning used by ID. It is just a bad name for single mechanism. At no point does this claim that Darwinism explains the diversity of life we see.

  3. This attempts to apply “Darwinism” to understand cancer evolution, once again it does not claim that Darwinism explains the diversity of life we see.

  4. Next one is by Noble of EES who misrepresents modern evolutionary science as neo-Darwinism. Very confused is he.

  5. Laubichler - is just like Nobel, a EES proponent who forgot about what happened in the 60s and 70s. Confused is he.

  6. The Hughs paper is hilarious, because Hughes is one of the key people who showed that Darwinian selection is not sufficient. Notice, also, there is no reference to “Darwinism.” That is like citing Kimura as a Darwinist. Regardless, this is a philosophy journal, nothing to do with evolutionary science.

  7. Weber is a philosophy journal, nothing to do with evolutionary science.

It is fairly entertaining, actually, but NONE of the papers your cite support your claim that anyone is publishing in scientific journals that they themselves think that “the Darwinian mechanism is sufficient to explain the diversity of life.” Is this really what you think the literature says?

3 Likes