A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

 

Previous Page

David Raup  (b. 1933)  Web  Amazon  GBS  QMP

Darwin’s theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favour of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution --  defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of the change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection , was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinain natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences. There were several problems, but the principal one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted. ... Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.    Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin  January 1979  p. 22-3

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and , ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. Also the major extinctions such as those of the dinosaurs and trilobites are still very puzzling.    Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology   Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin  January 1979  p. 25

This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change took place, and that's really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see, or 9 percent, or .9 percent.    Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology   Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin  January 1979  p. 26

A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: lowlevel textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.    Science  July 17 1981  p.289

Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show a reasonably smooth continuum of ancestor-descendant pairs with a satisfactory number of intermediates between major groups. Darwin even went so far as to say that if this were not found in the fossil record, his general theory of evolution would be in serious jeopardy. Such smooth transitions were not found in Darwin's time, and he explained this in part on the basis of an incomplete geologic record and in part on the lack of study of the that record. We are now more than a hundred years after Darwin and the situation is little changed. Since Darwin a tremendous expansion of paleontological knowledge has taken place, and we know much more about the fossil record than was known in his time, but the basic situation is not much different. We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail. To be sure, some new intermediate or transitional forms have been found, particularly among land vertebrates. But if Darwin were writing today, he would probably still have to cite a disturbing lack of missing links of transitional forms between the major groups of organisms.    Scientists Confront Creationism  (1983)  p.156

Phil Johnson's work is very good scholarship and, of course, this has been widely denied. He cannot be faulted; he did his homework and he understands 99 percent of evolutionary biology.    Doubts about Darwin  (2003)  p.83

 

Michael Richardson  Embryologist at St. George’s Medical School

This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. What Haeckel did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don't. These are fakes.     "An Embryonic Liar"  The London Times  August 11, 1997  p.14 

Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel's drawings.

It looks like it's (Haeckle's embryos)  turning out to be one of he famous fakes in biology.

 

Jeremy Rifkin  (b. 1943)  Web

We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of pre-existing cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever and ever. 

 

Michael Ruse  (b. 1940)  Editor of the Cambridge University Press Series in the Philosophy of Biology  Web  Amazon  GBS  AV

Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable. If one relies heavily on natural selection and sexual selection, simultaneously downplaying drift, which of course is what the neo-Darwinian does do, then Popper feels that one has a nonfalsifiable theory. And, certainly, many followers agree that there is something conceptually flawed with Darwinism.    Darwinism Defended  (1982)  p.133

Darwinism is a theory about causes in the biological world. It tries to give answers to questions about the way in which organic types develop and change over time, showing also why organisms today are as they are. But, although Darwinism is a theory of biological causation, it invites questions beyond its own strict domain. Naturally -- almost inevitably -- one is led back in time to ask questions about ultimate origins: where did life come from in the first place? Thus, at a very minimum, complementing Darwinism, as it were, we could use a theory of the first production of life: a theory of chemical evolution perhaps?    Darwinism Defended  (1982)  p.156

Darwinism is more than just a self-contained scientific theory. It touches at chords and beliefs of the most fundamental kind, stirring us in a way that only the greatest ideas can. Part of this reason today is because it mirrors and in turn illuminates a social philosophy which is dear to the heart of all civilized people. No apology or defense is necessary.    Darwinism Defended  (1982)  p.280-1

Finally, in this brief survey, let me prick the smugness of those of us who do not live and work in the United States. Already, the influence of Creationism has spread beyond the borders. In Canada, for instance, thin the province of British Columbia, at least one school board gives Creationism equal time in biology classes. In parts of Alberta, apparently, one has nothing Creationism taught! And, teachers in many other provinces are warned to tread very carefully around the subject of evolutionism. But, perhaps the most incredible sign of the success of Creationism has occurred in England, at the Natural History branch of the British Museum, of all places. In a major exhibition, on the “Origin of Species,” mounted in 1981 by the Museum to mark its centenary, Creationism was openly portrayed as an alternative to Darwinism. This if the “equal time” doctrine with a vengeance, indeed! Thomas Henry Huxley must be turning in his grave.

Obviously, the present-day Creationists are people to be reckoned with, and “Scientific Creationism” is a doctrine which cannot be ignored.    Darwinism Defended  (1982)  p.293

Nevertheless, I have now come to see that our biological origins do make a difference, and that they can and should be a starting-point for philosophy today.    Taking Darwin Seriously (1986) p. xiii

Now, for the first time, one could confidently suspend belief in any kind of God. The Natural development of organisms explains everything, most especially adaptation. Even if you did not want to become a full-blown atheist, you could become what Darwin's already mentioned supporter, T.H. Huxley, labeled an 'agnostic', neither believer nor disbeliever (Huxley, 1900). However, excluding or distancing God in this fashion raises with some urgency the major problems of philosophy. If God (perhaps) does not exist, wherein lie the guarantees of knowledge and of truth?  Possibly all is subjective illusion. If God does not exist, wherein lies the force of morality? Why should we not do precisely what we please, cheating and lying and stealing, to serve our own ends? Dry answers by philosophers aiming for purely secular answers tended not to convince. 

Evolution destroyed the final foundations of traditional belief. To many people, it was evolution that would provide the foundations of a new belief-system. Evolution would lead to a deeper and truer understanding of the problems of knowledge. Evolution would lead to a deeper and true understanding of the nature of morality. Thus were born (what are known now as) 'evolutionary epistemology' and 'evolutionary ethics'.    Taking Darwin Seriously  (1986)  p.30

Popper’s new kinds of variation would not be adequate anyway. Plants show intricate adaptations – just as great as those of animals—and yet they are virtually without behaviour. Obviously, they cannot evolve in the way supposed by Popper. So why suppose it for animals?    Taking Darwin Seriously (1986) p.64

The importance of the Scientific Revolution for philosophy is beyond question. Modern philosophy – the work of both rationalists and empiricists would have been impossible without great advances in physics. Analogously, therefore, we could anticipate that the Darwinian Revolution will have important implications for philosophy. Indeed, I would go further and say that we might expect Darwin's work to have even greater implications for philosophy than those of physics. The theory of evolution through natural selection impinges so directly on our own species. It is not just that we are on a speck of dust whirling around in the void but that we ourselves are no more than transformed apes. If such a realization is not to affect our views of epistemology and ethics, I do not know what is. As I said in the Preface, I find it inconceivable that it is irrelevant to the foundations of philosophy whether we are the end result of a slow natural evolutionary process, or made miraculously in God’s own image on a Friday, some 6,000 years ago.    Taking Darwin Seriously (1986) p.274-275

I always find when I meet creationists or non-evolutionists or critics or whatever, I find it a lot easier to hate them in print than I do in person.    Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium  February  13,1993

But we did talk much more about the whole question of metaphysics, the whole question of philosophical bases. And what Johnson was arguing was that, at a certain level, the kind of position of a person like myself, an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level, just as much as the kind of position of let us say somebody, some creationist, someone like Gish or somebody like that. And to a certain extent, I must confess, in the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in the creationism trial in Arkansas, I must say that I've been coming to this kind of position myself.    Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993

I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things.    Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993

It's certainly been the case that evolution has functioned, if not as a religion as such, certainly with elements akin to a secular religion. Those of us who teach philosophy of religion always say there's no way of defining religion by a neat, necessary and sufficient condition. The best that you can do is list a number of characteristics, some of which all religions have, and none of which any religion, whatever or however you sort of put it. And certainly, there's no doubt about it, that in the past, and I think also in the present, for many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion.    Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993

Certainly, though, as I say, for Thomas Henry Huxley, I don't think there's any question but that evolution functioned, at a level, as a kind of secular religion...If you look both at his printed stuff, and if you go down to Rice University which has got all his private papers, again and again in the letters, it comes through very strongly that for Julian Huxley evolution was functioning as a kind of secular religion...I think that today also, for more than one eminent evolutionist, evolution in a way functions as a kind of secular religion...Certainly, if you look for instance in On Human Nature, Wilson is quite categorical about wanting to see evolution as the new myth, and all sorts of language like this. That for him, at some level, it's functioning as a kind of metaphysical system.    Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993

And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may.     Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993

I think that philosophically that one should be sensitive to what I think history shows, namely, that evolution, just as much as religion -- or at least, leave "just as much," let me leave that phrase -- evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. I guess we all knew that, but I think that we're all much more sensitive to these facts now. And I think that the way to deal with creationism, but the way to deal with evolution also, is not to deny these facts, but to recognize them, and to see where we can go, as we move on from there.    Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993

I think it's incumbent upon us who take this particular creationism - evolution debate seriously, to be sensitive to these facts, and not simply put our heads in the sand, and say, well, if we take this sort of stuff seriously, we're in deep trouble. Perhaps we are. But I don't think that the solution is just by simply ignoring them.    Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993

I am sure that my Quaker background prepared me for philosophy and its cleansing actions, for from a tender age I had been used to argument rather than faith. No doubt this unique version of Christianity which has no creed or ritual or any of the other paraphernalia associated with most religions made the slide to skepticism and atheism fairly easy. Although, unlike many of my friends, neither then nor now did/do I develop a passionate hatred of Christianity.    Zygon  March 1994  p.26

It is probably because I do have an intensely religious nature – using this term in a secular sense, as one might apply it to other nonbelievers like Thomas Henry Huxley -- that I was attracted toward evolution. Speaking in an entirely secular manner, I do not believe that people come to evolution by chance. From Herbert Spencer (1892) to Edward O. Wilson (1978), it has functioned as a kind of Weltanschauung, a world picture which gives meaning to life. It is something that acts as a foundation for the big questions which we humans face. Yet, in those early years, this was not apparent to me -- at least, it was not a matter of great interest to me.    Zygon   March 1994  p.26

Indeed, some might even point to the fact that they themselves have tried to produce an ideologically acceptable evolutionism. I think, for example, of the work of the Marxist biologists Richard Lewontin and Richard Levins. By their own admission, they have openly attempted to put their philosophy in to their science, explicitly endorsing holistic approaches, trying to analyse nature in a hierarchical manner, standing against the 'reductionism' which is the mark of so much of modern science.     Evolutionary Naturalism  (1995)  p. 212

Lyell found his approach to geology attractive because it alone satisfied his deistic concept of theology. But Lyellian geology, molded as it was by religion, was probably the major influence in bringing about Darwinian evolutionism, though the parent was not altogether happy with the child.     The Darwinian Revolution  (1999)  p.272

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.    How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post  May 13, 2000

All too often, there is a slide from science to something more, and this slide goes unmentioned -- unrealized even.

For pointing this out we should be grateful for the opponents of evolution.    How evolution became a religion: creationists correct?  National Post  May 13, 2000

With the possible exception of Herbert Spencer, no one in the whole history of evolutionism was more ardent in his progressionism than Julian Huxley. He lived it, breathed it, talked it, and wrote about it at very great length. Searching desperately as a young man for a faith to substitute for Christianity, Huxley found it in progress -- and for him, progress was best manifested in and made most probable and plausible by the evolutionary process.     Mystery of Mysteries  (2001)  p. 94

Enough by way of trailer for evolutionism today. My intent is not to provide a comprehensive survey of every last finding or hypothesis in the field. I certainly want to look at some of the major advances and ideas. But as importantly, I want a sense of the activities, the methods, the relationships of today's evolutionism.    Mystery of Mysteries  2001  p.123

Hence, Huxley saw the need to found his own church, and evolution was the ideal cornerstone. It offered a story of origins, one that (thanks to progress) puts humans at the center and top and that could even provide moral messages. The philosopher Herbert Spencer was a great help here. He was ever ready to urge his fellow Victorians that the way to true virtue lies through progress, which comes from promoting a struggle in society as well as in biology--a laissez-faire socioeconomic philosophy. Thus, evolution had its commandments no less than did Christianity. And so Huxley preached evolution-as-world-view at working men's clubs, from the podia during presidential addresses, and in debates with clerics--notably Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford. He even aided the founding of new cathedrals of evolution, stuffed with displays of dinosaurs newly discovered in the American West. Except, of course, these halls of worship were better known as natural history museums.    Science  Mar 7 2003  p.1524

These new-style evolutionists--the mathematicians and empiricists--wanted to professionalize evolution because they wanted to study it full time in universities, with students and research grants, and so forth. However, like everyone else, they had been initially attracted to evolution precisely because of its quasi-religious aspects, regardless of whether these formed the basis of an agnostic/atheistic humanism or something to revitalize an old religion that had lost its spirit and vigor. Hence, they wanted to keep a value-impregnated evolutionism that delivered moral messages even as it strived for greater progressive triumphs.    Science  Mar 7 2003  p.1524

Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity.    Science  March 7 2003  p.1524

Inherit the Wind took many liberties in telling the tale, shaping the clash to reflect concerns of the 1950s rather than the 1920s -- specifically the right to have contrary opinions which, thanks to the Cold War, Americans were under great pressure to conform to general norms of behavior and thought. In the real Scopes Trial, evolution -- particularly human evolution -- was certainly at the center of the debate, but the true issue was more the general philosophy for which evolution was taken to stand. Evolutionism rather than mere evolution.     The Evolution-Creation Struggle  (2005)  p. 166-7     see also: Scopes Trial

This is not just a fight about dinosaurs or gaps in the fossil record, this is a fight about different worldviews.    Boston Globe  May 1 2005

Charles Darwin's discussion of the problem in the Origin of Species always puts me in mind of Sherlock Holmes's response in the story "Silver Blaze." Upon being asked if there were any points of note, he replied: "The dog that barked in the night." But the dog didn't bark in the night." "Precisely!" "But Darwin didn't discuss the Origin of life in the Origin of Species." "Precisely!" He knew that he had no answer and that getting into a discussion of the topic would lead only to tears, so he stayed away from it altogether.

However, that is cheating a little -- certainly it would be today.    Darwinism and Its Discontents (2006) p.52-3

If we humans are an end product of a long, slow, law-governed process of natural selection rather than favored of God created miraculously on the Sixth Day, Darwinism simply has to be relevant to philosophy.    Darwinism and Its Discontents (2006) p.237

Whatever may be the case, it is not that the atheists are having a field day because of the brilliance and novelty of their thinking. Frankly -- and I speak here as a nonbeliever myself, pretty atheistic about Christianity and skeptical about all theological claims -- the material being churned out is second rate. And that is a euphemism for "downright awful."    ISIS  December 2007  p.815  see also: atheistdelusion  see also: Terry Eagleton 

Dawkins is brazen in his ignorance of philosophy and theology (not to mention the history of science). A major part of the book involves ripping into the chief arguments for the existence of God. I confess that it is the first time in my life that I have felt sorry for the ontological argument.    ISIS  December 2007  p.815

This is a man truly out of his depth. Does he honestly think that no philosopher or theologian has ever thought of or worried about the infinite regress of the cosmological argument? If God caused the world, what caused God? The standard reply is that God needs no cause because he is a necessary being, eternal, outside time. Read Saint Augustine's Confessions. Just as 2+2=4 is uncaused and always true, so is God's existence. Now you might want to worry about the notion of necessary existence. But at least you should know that it is something to worry about. And if you are going to reject the notion, then you must yourself address the key question behind the proof, the question that Martin Heidegger said was the fundamental question of metaphysics: Why is there something rather than nothing? If not God, then what?    ISIS  December 2007  p.815

The paradox is that Dawkins should be more modest. He stresses that we are the product of Darwinian evolution, and hence there is no good reason to think that we have the power to penetrate into the mysteries of the universe...I do think that a certain tolerance of the views of others is not only reasonable but perhaps demanded of the Darwinian.    ISIS  December 2007  p.815-6

Suppose this is true -- that if you are a Darwinian, then you cannot be a Christian. How then does one answer the creationist who objects to the teaching of Darwinism in schools? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If theism cannot be taught in schools (in America) because it violates the separation of church and state, why then should Darwinism be permitted? If Darwinism leads to atheism,  does this not also violate the separation of church and state?    ISIS  December 2007  p.816

I understand three things by Darwinism. First the fact of evolution, namely that all organisms came through a long slow process of development -- a natural process -- from a few forms and ultimately from inorganic material.    The Impact of Darwinism  The Stanford Review  April 22 2008

Morality then is not something handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai. It is something forged in the struggle for existence and reproduction, something fashioned by natural selection…Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothaches and marking student papers…now that you know morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what’s to stop you from behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense.    God is dead. Long live morality  March 15  2010

You cannot legally teach religion in state schools, at least not in biology and other science classes.  That was the issue in Arkansas and Dover.  (I am not talking about current affairs or like courses.)  But now ask yourself.  If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim?  And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?    Is Science Religion?  The Chronicle of Higher Education  December 22 2010

The cover article of this month's Christianity Today is on the subject of Adam and Eve. Could humans be descended from one single pair or not? Really, Christians should be over this one by now. They should have been over it by Christmas of 1859, a month after Charles Darwin published his "Origin of Species." As he said there, "light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history."     Adam and Eve Didn't Exist  June 10 2011

In other words, science tells us that Adam and Eve are fictions... St. Paul thought we are descended from Adam and Eve. He was wrong.    Adam and Eve Didn't Exist  June 10 2011

But is there not the uncomfortable worry that religion -- theology -- is always going to play second fiddle, having to give way in the face of science? And never the other way around... It may be true that this is a one-way process, but in no way does this imply that theology is inferior.    Adam and Eve Didn't Exist  June 10 2011

Bertrand Russell  (1872 – 1970)  Web  Amazon  GBS  AV

Brief and powerless is man's life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.    Why I am not a Christian  (1957)  p.115

It appears that during those ages when animals were torturing each other with ferocious horns and agonizing stings, Omnipotence was quietly waiting for the ultimate emergence of man, with his still more widely diffused cruelty. Why the Creator should have preferred to reach his goal by a process, instead of going straight to it, these modem theologians do not tell us.    Religion and Science  (1961)  p. 73 

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins.     Mysticism and Logic  (1981)  p.41 

But the analysis of change and continuity is not a problem upon which either physics or biology throws any light: it is a problem of a new kind, belonging to a different kind of study. The question whether evolutionism offers a true or a false answer to this problem is not, therefore, a question to be solved by appeals to particular facts, such as biology and physics reveal. In assuming dogmatically a certain answer to this question, evolutionism ceases to be scientific yet it is only in touching on this question that evolutionism reaches the subject-matter of philosophy. Evolutionism thus consist of two parts: one not philosophical, but only a hasty generalization of the kind which the special sciences might hereafter confirm of confute; the other not scientific, but a mere unsupported dogma, belonging to philosophy by its subject-matter, but in no way deducible from the facts upon which evolutionism relies.     Our Knowledge of the External World  (1993)  p. 26-7

Next Page

A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

 

Home  Evolution  Stephen Jones