A Darwinectomy in progress:
Some biologists might shudder at the thought of eliminating Darwinism from their scientific work. A “Darwin-ectomy” sounds more painful than a tonsillectomy or appendectomy. To hard-core evolutionists, it might sound like a cephalectomy (removal of the head)! If Darwinism is as essential to biology as Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne argues, then removing evolutionary words and concepts should make research incomprehensible.
If, on the other hand, Darwinism is more of a “narrative gloss” applied to the conclusions after the scientific work is done, as the late Philip Skell observed, then biology would survive the operation just fine. It might even be healthier, slimmed down after disposing of unnecessary philosophical baggage. Here are some recent scientific papers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) to use as test cases.
Evolution News, “No Harm, No Foul — What If Darwinism Were Excised from Biology?” at Discovery Institute CSC
What difference would it make if Darwinism were excised from biology?
Well, for one thing, cleaner prose and clearer thinking. Maybe new, better ideas. How about:
“Humans evolved to live in groups”
Response: Wow. Deep.
Fast forward: Editor performs Darwinectomy, resulting in:
“Humans live in groups.”
Response: Well… yeah. But so? Who invited this clown? Is he really worth $5000? That half million-dollar advance on his next book?
Kiddies, try Darwscrubbing at home for fun but keep quiet about the results. Don’t spook your Woke parents if they need Darwin just to get up in the morning and go to work.
Never be cruel.
If you’re a Christian, you know you mustn’t be cruel.
Not a Christian? Fine, but remember, karma’s a bitch. There’s no escape from reality either way. We must dump Darwin non-cruelly.
Take-home point: Science explanations should offer substance, not just reinforcement of belief using hocus-pocus words like “evolved to.”
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
Follow UD News at Twitter!