[betty boop]

On the other hand, because it is treated as a blueprint for a whole range of disciplines which can be empirically tested (DNA, etc.) - the repeating challenge is whether the conclusions being drawn are "kluged" - made to fit the blueprint or orthodoxy of a presumed continuum?

I seriously wonder about this myself, A-G. Is the theory a kind of "Procrustean bed" into which evidence is "forced" to fit? Further, parts of it seem to have a mythical quality -- e.g., the Common Ancestor.

People will scream that I use the word "myth" in connection with anything scientific. But myth is actually a technical term in philosophy, and some myths are "true" -- or as close to "true" as one can get without direct evidence. And it is the lack of direct evidence that explains how myths arise. Myths are conjectural logoi, or "stories" that explain, or give an rational, reasonable account of broad sectors of reality, or even of total reality (e.g., cosmologies of every description). And as Plato indicated by his term, aletheia logos, some myths are "likely stories." That is to say, there is a high probability that such myths are actually true.

If we are to have a history of science, we absolutely would have to include the great Greeks, including the pre-Socratics.... FWIW

Thank you so much for your penetrating analysis!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your engaging reply!

Indeed, a proper redefinition of "science" would include the wisdom of the Greeks and myths which are likely stories. Theories from all the historical sciences are myths because they are theories of continuums based on quantizations.

I seriously wonder about this myself, A-G. Is the theory a kind of "Procrustean bed" into which evidence is "forced" to fit? Further, parts of it seem to have a mythical quality -- e.g., the Common Ancestor.

Indeed. If science would only give up the presupposition of naturalism then there could be no complaints that the conclusion drawn was kluged to fit the orthodoxy.