Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Darwinism, scientific and "Social" versionsRobert Reich has a good piece out on Darwinism, focusing on how today's Republicans repudiate the scientific theory of evolution (natural selection). But they endorse, in substance if not in label, the Social Darwinism of the Gilded Age: Of Darwinism and Social Darwinism CommonDreams.org 11/29/05. He writes:The Conservative Movement, as its progenitors like to call it, is now mounting a full-throttled attack on Darwinism even as it has thoroughly embraced Darwin’s bastard child, social Darwinism. On the face of it, these positions may appear inconsistent. What unites them is a profound disdain for science, logic, and fact. ...The only exception I would take to what he writes in this article is that he says that scientists are unanimous (for all meaningful purposes) in saying that evolution is "a fact, not a theory". Presumably he's responding here to the flat-earther argument that evolution is "just a theory", i.e. a guess. But however hard it may be for the flat-earth crowd to accept that "theory" may have a different meaning in science than in colloquial English, evolution is indeed a theory. A scientific theory, which means it's an intellectual framework to describe the process that is evidenced by the scientific facts of geology, biology, paleontology and other fields. | +Save/Share | | |
FEATURED QUOTE
No subject for immortal verse That we who lived by honest dreams Defend the bad against the worse." -- Cecil Day-Lewis from Where Are The War Poets?
ABOUT US
RECENT POSTS
ARCHIVES
RECENT COMMENTS
[Tip: Point cursor to any comment to see title of post being discussed.]
SEARCH THIS SITE
BLUE'S NEWS
ACT BLUE
BLUE LINKS
Environmental Links Gay/Lesbian Links News & Media Links Organization Links Political Links Religious Links Watchdog Links
BLUE ROLL
MISCELLANEOUS
|