Darwin's theory was formulated on the basis of countless observations, i.e., as a result of application of the scientific method. His theory, as any theory, provides a logical framework that ties all the observations together. He wasn't even the first to formulate a theory of evolution; previous iterations of the theory had flaws.
I would point out that your seven steps of the scientific method aren't exactly in the correct order. I've never started off with making observations; I need to have a hypothesis in place first, or I won't even know what observations to make.
A couple of observations. (1) You cannot show/demonstrate that "all those reactions" occur "without any conscious input." (I'm not talking about God's consciousness here.) (2) Absent direction toward a global purpose, how do you explain how "gadzillions of chemical reactions can coordinate so well" in biological situations? Does DNA bark out the orders here, or what?
There are all kinds of processes that coordinate the reactions--they occur or are shut down in response to signals; they're controlled on the basis of feedback mechanisms. There really is no conscious thought behind them; they just occur. Each reaction taken alone is actually fairly simple. The complexity, and the wonder, of the system is that, at any given moment, countless gadzillions of those reactions are occurring within each organism, and life is maintained.
Plus where do the "quite constraining" physical/natural laws come from? Do they not fall into the category of "non-observables," intangible, immaterial entities?
Among the "bizarre beliefs and motivations of scientists" seems to be the idea that only that which can be directly observed — material objects — can be said to truly exist. So how does science account for the existence of the physical laws?
I do not know why the physical laws are as they are, nor do I spend much time contemplating the issue. I can only observe their effect.
I often hear Rush Limbaugh describe himself as living in "Literalville," and I'm going to have to say that I think I may live there, too. Because I'm attuned to the world around me, and I want to know everything about it--abstract thought just does not have a lot of interest to me. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a metaphysical universe outside of this one; the only thing that can be accomplished with science is to describe the physical world we live in.
In closing, the scientific method can give you "fact"; but it cannot give you "value" — what the facts actually mean. And this is why I do not share your belief that "expert science" is an adequate or desirable guide to public policy.
I never expressed an opinion one way or the other on whether science should inform public policy, or how much influence it should have in that arena. I do know that science is often misused to try to force policy that people would otherwise reject (e.g. using global warming as an excuse to try to inhibit technological advancement). But that's an issue for other threads (where I have expressed plenty of opinion).
I think most hypotheses are the result of first having observed something you do not have an explanation for, and the desire to find one.
And yet AFAIK, there has never been a direct observation of one species "evolving" into another. Nor am I aware of any experimental design that has demonstrated this directly, under controlled conditions. As Darwin himself noted, his theory rises or falls based on the evidence of the fossil record. That is, it depends on historical data, and not on the application of the scientific method. And strangely enough, it seems few paleontologists are Darwinists.... Go figure!
Darwin himself said that his theory predicts that innumerable transitional forms will be found in the fossil record. But that is precisely what we do not find. To quote Darwin:
...Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ... Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."As Stephen Jay Gould describes it, there is an apparent inconsistency between the fossil record and the theory of evolution:
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: (1) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. (2) Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"exDemMom, you wrote that "I've never started off with making observations; I need to have a hypothesis in place first, or I won't even know what observations to make." But where does the hypothesis come from? If you don't make observations first, how can you tell whether the hypothesis is suitable to your investigation? If hypotheses are something you can just pick up, ready-made, off the shelf — presumably because they have been blessed by one's peers as acceptably orthodox — then is this even science? Where are the new, breakthrough ideas to come from, if you're effectively locked into the defense of an orthodoxy? How do you avoid the problem of, "if all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?"
You speak of "signals," and "feedback mechanisms" as sufficient to account for the global coordination of the countless myriads of biological "reactions" (you call them that, not "functions") absolutely necessary to the existence and sustenance of the biological organism. Consciousness has no role to play whatever.
And yet studies appear to show that even such humble critturs as bacteria and amoebae possess a form of consciousness, demonstrated in responsiveness and learning behaviors, and also social behavior.
BTW, you do not say where the "signals" emanate from; nor do you indicate how the myriads of reactions are coordinated, dynamically, instantaneously, simultaneously utterly collaboratively from moment-to-moment for the purpose of maintaining the life of the organism. It seems you are looking at the "level" of the discrete reactions; I am asking how the myriads are all "harnessed up" to maintain the existence of the being at the global "level"; i.e., as it expresses what looks very much to me like an ordered unity. In effect, you are merely postulating that all this is effectively a totally random process — disciplined by physical laws — and "stuff just happens." But I want to know how this "stuff happens."
You wrote: "Because I'm attuned to the world around me, and I want to know everything about it — abstract thought just does not have a lot of interest to me." Well, that's fine. We're just different, I guess. Yet I too am attuned to, and want to understand the world around me; but I do not know how to do that without abstract reasoning. It takes the latter to transform "data" into "information."
Or so it seems to me. Whatever the case, my critique of Darwinism and science more generally has been advanced on epistemological grounds — which involves a good deal of abstract thinking, for sure.
Thank you so very much for writing, exDemMom!