So why are we still funding conceptually empty Darwinism?
Oh yes, because of all the [horses] on the payroll. And the (no kidding) “superheroes” of the Darwin in the schools lobby, fuelled by out of date court decisions.
The physical science of Darwin’s time, which provided a backdrop to his thinking, was dominated by Newton’s concept that material bodies only change course in proportion to external forces that act on them. It also included the often more pertinent notion (e.g., for the molding of pliable materials) from Aristotle of matter changing position or shape only to the extent that it continues to be pushed. These ideas, however, did not pretend to account for the sudden reorganizational changes (freezing, melting, phase separation, compositional change) seen in complex chemically and mechanically active materials. We now recognize that the tissues of a developing embryo are indeed such non-Newtonian, non-Aristotelian materials. By the end of Darwin’s life new physical theories were being put forward to explain abrupt and large-scale changes in such materials, and by extension, the character and transformations of organisms and their organs.
So why are taxpayers still funding Darwin’s profs? Kairosfocus has been talking about the Texas school board hearings (which are really about forcing the public to fund an obviously exploded model of science).