What? Someone admitting that Darwin was “unscientific”?
|May 28, 2017||Posted by News under Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Naturalism|
Sure he was. But, see, he bought the “Science” brand.
From Jon Cassidy at the American Spectator:
Darwinism led to Social Darwinism. As the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has written, after 1859, “subsequent arguments for slavery, colonialism, racial differences, class struggles, and sex roles would go forth primarily under the banner of science.”
Most of those arguments have been banished, but were they ever less scientific than Darwin’s own work? After all, Darwin didn’t use the scientific method, either, and worried that his work was “grievously hypothetical.”
When you’re working outside of falsifiable propositions, what qualifies a work as science rather than speculation? More.
See also: Neuroscience tried wholly embracing naturalism, but then the brain got away
Follow UD News at Twitter!