Let me be clear about one thing. I've said it many times but it bears repeating. In my opinion Charles Darwin is the greatest scientist who ever lived and natural selection is one of the greatest ideas in science.That should never be an excuse for exaggerating Darwin's contribution to modern evolutionary theory yet that's what we're seeing in the run-up to the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. I was tremendously disappointed in the Royal Ontario Museum symposium a few weeks ago [Darwinism at the ROM] and in several articles that have been published since then.
I'm going to keep harping on this point until it sinks in. Here's the latest example from TimesOnline in the UK [Darwin's Bulldogs].
Next year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his On The Origin of Species. The Natural History Museum and the BBC plan extensive education programmes. Anticipating the anniversaries, Professor Richard Dawkins is presenting a series on Channel 4. These are welcome ventures. On the evidence of its first episode, Professor Dawkins's exposition of Darwinism will be an important public resource.There are three things wrong with this short article.
Darwin founded a branch of learning that has remarkable explanatory power and also grandeur. That the mechanism of evolution is natural selection is one of the great discoveries of science, with implications far beyond evolutionary biology. As Ernst Mayr, the biologist, wrote: “No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact.”
It is an unfortunate wonder of the modern age that people who are highly educated in some areas may still be resistant to scientific inquiry. We customarily think of objectors to Darwinism as Protestant fundamentalists. There is in fact a worrying trend for Muslim children to be taught the myths of creation, and the pseudoscience of “intelligent design”, as an explanation of the origins of life.
First, the statement, "That the mechanism of evolution is natural selection is one of the great discoveries of science ..." is just plain wrong. Natural selection is one of the mechanisms of evolution but it is not the only one. Why can't people grasp this simple concept? It does not denigrate Charles Darwin's contribution to point out that we discovered other mechanisms in the 20th century.
Second, Mayr's statement, taken out of context, is misleading. Evolution is a fact but evolutionary theory is not a fact [Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory].
Third, I object to the term "Darwinism" and I am not a Protestant fundamentalist, a Muslim, or an IDiot. I wish journalists would make the effort to realize that modern evolutionary theory is no longer called "Darwinism." [Why I'm Not a Darwinist]. This does not mean that Charles Darwin was wrong. It simply means that the science of evolutionary biology has advanced a smidgen since 1859.
[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]
21st century? Have I missed some new mechanisms?
ReplyDeleteAnyway Richard Dawkins overdoes it himself in his opening statement in his new 'The Genius of Charles Darwin' TV series. He says ""What Darwin achieved was nothing less than a complete explanation of the complexity and diversity of all life." I would suggest it was far from complete with its assumption of the incorrect 'blending' mechanism of inheritance.
I meant 20th century and I have changed the posting.
ReplyDelete