16 Comments

There are no"isms" in legitimate scientific research. Darwinism is a term used by those with a 19th century perspective. Darwin's observations, updated with findings from biochemistry and other strands of study, have proven themselves valid. I find the use of the term is often used by people who believe in Intelligent Design or its cousin, creationism. (I was going to call it idiot cousin.). I prefer to use the term evolutionary biology; it combines genetics, chemistry, zoology, paleontology, stratiography and natural history. It's legit science. Darwinism is an insult.

Expand full comment

Thank you for an informative article, I knew of Dobzhansky but wasn't familiar with his work. What is your view on the current situation in abiogenesis? Evolution, whatever version one takes, is about change. For something to change (evolve), something needs to exist which is able to do so. That something has to be in some way "organic", or perhaps "pre-organic", in order to be subject to evolutionary change?

Expand full comment

WE don't have to believe in the Abrahamic God or the intelligent creationist god to understand that consciousness imbues all of the universe with meaning. The latest idea I have seen capturing physics here on the West Coast is that everything has consciousness (People shy away from being labeled panpsychists, even if they are.) and consciousness by its very nature is creative. Thus a virus may be far down on the consciousness level, but its mutation is a creative solution to a problem that drives all conscious beings: survival of its species.

Expand full comment

You kind of lost me in the weeds. I learned about Darwin's Theory of natural selection and about Mendelian genetics and I never saw any conflict between the two. In my view, evolution is how G-d expresses and so there is no conflict there either. Keep it simple, folks.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 18, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment