Examing Darwinism As Science

Darwinism got off on the wrong footing early on. Darwin himself initiated the habit of explaining away the fossil record and using selective breeding as an example of natural selection at work. The central concept of Darwinism, that of descent with modification, was thus protected almost from its inception from empirical testing. The theory was widely accepted before it was rigorously tested. The "science" embarked upon finding confirmatory evidence and explaining away negative data. Eventually some evolutionists reached the point illustrated in my previous post on the 1959 Centennial celebration--recall the remarks of Julian Huxley, overtly religious in tone and content.

Much has depended upon use of vague definitions and equivocations. The elasticity of the word "evolution" allows it to cover many bases. Natural selection itself can appear and disappear on command, depending on the sophistication of the critic being answered. Many Darwinists apparently see themselves in the front lines of a struggle against "fundamentalism" and "irrationality," and so are devoted to defending the theory rather than evaluating it.

If science is to get back on track, the first thing that must happen is that Darwinists must permit foundational concepts such as common ancestry and descent with modification to undergo rigorous testing. All evidence should be confronted, not just the confirmatory bits, and then only the confirmations obtained from risky predictions should be accepted. "Falsification is not a defeat for science, but a liberation."