By Michael Every of Rabobank
Welcome to a new week, and to a lengthy argument I hope is worth reading through to the end of. To start, an editorial in the journal ‘Science’ just argued that Darwin’s ‘The Descent of Man’ is “often problematic, prejudiced, and injurious”, and that the key phrase “’survival of the fittest’ does not accurately represent the dynamics of evolutionary processes.”
Yes, there have always been rivals to Darwin. Perhaps quantum epigenetics will show Lamarck was correct, and giraffes evolve longer necks directly in response to the physical stimuli of juicy leaves dangling above them. If so, that’s how scientific thought progresses. However, while some of the criticisms above may have some validity, the theory of evolution does not inexorably lead Darwinism to the worst evils of Social Darwinism. Although mankind is just another species of animal, as Darwin shook the world in saying, we don’t have to ‘behave like animals’, e.g., mother cats will eat their own kittens if they feel the biological imperative, but humans, rightly, do not. That Darwinism is “problematic” in a hyper-politicised university environment is worth noting even for non-scientists. Darwinism is as close to the oxymoron of “scientific fact” as one gets: if it is not safe from politics, then no science is. And that’s how scientific thought regresses.
Let me stress there is no such thing as a “scientific fact”. Scientific method is to extend an inductive hypothesis, which one tries to falsify, and if one cannot then the hypothesis is considered valid – until falsified. That does not mean it is a ‘fact’. A hypothesis tested vigorously enough can be called a theory...