Evolutionism? — Nah, No Such Thing

John Rennie at Scientific American posts a critique of Judith Shulevitz's review of Eugenie C. Scott's Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction and Michael Ruse's The Evolution-Creation Struggle.

The main gist of Rennie's critique is an objection to Shulevitz's support of the concept of "evolutionism" — "the part of evolutionary thought that reaches beyond testable science".

I did not realize there was a "part of evolutionary thought that reaches beyond testable science". There is a train of secular modernist thought that utilizes evolution as part of its philosophical basis, but that has nothing to do with science.

The misnamed Theory of Evolution — it really should be Law of Evolution, since its as fundamental and well-tested as any other physical "law" — is a robust, accepted, logically consistent theory of the origin of species. It is not a belief system. Science is not a matter of belief. Science is a process which produces, at any point in time, an explanation that best fits the currently known observations. It does not rely on blind faith or revelation. It is not religion. It is not even philosophy. It is merely an algorithm which produces useful results.

If you want to know how the world works, you engage in the algorithm we refer to as "science" ... if you want to call a friend on the phone, you engage in the algorithm we refer to as "dialing the phone". Neither requires any religious or philosophical underpinnings, they are merely methods that have historically achieved good results. As soon as science stops effectively explaining the world, we will try something else. As soon as dialing the phone stops effectively calling a friend, we will also try something else.

Comments

[Suyindyk]

a few things there which will take a litlte unpacking;"Atheists and humanists are essentially constrained by their religious beliefs to believe in evolution, so that could be part of the reason why not many scientists are exploring alternatives. (Wanting to keep their jobs, funding and reputations might be another reason.)"What religious beliefs? I am an atheist (well an agnostic if you want a strict definition) and a humanist and this description doesn't apply to me. I don't have "belief's" i just follow the evidence as it appears to me. I am delighted to change my mind about things. I haven't met a fellow humanist or atheist that doesn't agree with that.What are you basing this assumption on?Slurs about jobs and funding seem a litlte beneath you. This type of argument is normally used by AGW deniers and anti-vaccine types - surely that's enough reason not to use it "And it’s certainly the case that those who reject evolution most confidently will almost inevitably have strong creationist beliefs of one kind or another."Yes I haven't met anyone that doesn't fit into both camps.If you do want to know what atheists/humanists think I will be happy to give you a few personal anecdotes if you like - fire away.Cheers,Psi