At “New Scientist peddles Darwinism even now. Weeds grow,” we learned,
The work of Charles Darwin showed, irrefutably, that humans are just another animal occupying a small branch on a vast tree of life. No divine spark is needed to explain our existence and traits.
Perhaps by irrefutable proof’ he means the fact that Darwinian evolution is impervious to falsification by empirical evidence since it has no demarcation criteria based in mathematics to make it scientific?
With no demarcation criteria you simply can’t straight out refute Darwinian evolution by empirical observation! i.e. it is irrefutable!
Yes. And in sociologist Steve Fuller‘s memorable phrase, Darwinism is beginning to collapse into the mess that floored astrology. It is principally a cultural, if not religious commitment. No longer really science. It is irrefutable because everyone who doesn’t think too hard believes it – except nature, of course.
If the Royal Society meeting on Darwinism in the fall fizzles, as many fear, that will be a blow to the Society, without changing the direction at all.
Put another way: There are still astrology columns in newspapers today. It’s just no longer taken seriously as science.
See also: What the fossils told us in their own words
Follow UD News at Twitter!