That's true as far as the "science" goes. But amongst the "Great Unwashed" Darwinism is synonymous with the ToE.
And scientists, like Richard Dawkins, who speak to them do not disabuse them of this false notion.
We need leading scientists to do as Gould did and tell the world that "Darwin got it wrong" and say how he got it wrong with a clear, unqualified and unnuanced statement.
Unfortunately all we get are chirping crickets or yes..buts.
We need leading scientists to do as Gould did and tell the world that "Darwin got it wrong" and say how he got it wrong with a clear, unqualified and unnuanced statement.
That's a really good point. The evos can kick and scream all they want about Darwinism and the non-scientific implications, but over a hundred years later and the most outspoken of the evolution supporters are still carrying the flag.
>>But there are lots things that Darwin didn’t know or got wrong - this is yet another reason to use a term like developmental or evolutionary biology - “Darwinism” hasn’t been a science since the 1930’s.
That’s true as far as the “science” goes. But amongst the “Great Unwashed” Darwinism is synonymous with the ToE.
And scientists, like Richard Dawkins, who speak to them do not disabuse them of this false notion.
We need leading scientists to do as Gould did and tell the world that “Darwin got it wrong” and say how he got it wrong with a clear, unqualified and unnuanced statement.
Unfortunately all we get are chirping crickets or yes..buts.<<
I hear that so much I know it must be a constant experience.
But in the science circles I travel in, everything is debated. A discussion of cheating in baseball can easily lead to half a dozen scientists and engineers taking the day off to drill out bats and cork them and teaching a robot to swing a bat to settle an argument.
It makes me wonder how much the media mis-filters whose who in science and who to listen to. If I say some famous scientist got something wrong it would raise an eye as just about every guru of each generation went to his death bed denying or ignorant of what would become common knowledge in the future. Except maybe for Issac Newton, I can’t think of anybody who merits a whole branch of science named after them - and we only talk about Newtonian to differentiate it from modern physics.
And BTW, Professor Gould got lots of arguments til the day he died. And beyond.
I don't understand what you think this will accomplish. Scientists like Dawkins and Gould aren't going to say "Darwin got it wrong--and therefore the whole theory of evolution has collapsed." What elements of "Darwinism" do you think the public needs to be disabused of?