Replies

That presupposes that there is some way of testing the axioms. That gets to be problematic once you get outside the realm of physical causes and sensory perception.

Should one of them be falsified, the theory built on it will also fail. For instance, theories which held geocentricity as a postulate are now falsified.

Darwin took life as "given" - he didn't ask or answer the question "what is life v non-life/death in nature" nor did he posit a theory of abiogenesis.

In my view, Darwin should have formally declared life as an axiom or postulate in his theory. Contentious disagreements have multiplied from inferences due to that omission.

>>In my view, Darwin should have formally declared life as an axiom or postulate in his theory. Contentious disagreements have multiplied from inferences due to that omission. <<

And since I am having insomnia, I’ll go ahead and address this question (if’n you don’t mind).

Abiogenesis is no more a prerequisite to TToE (or any other biological science) than it is a prerequisite to Geology, Astronomy or any other life science. Darwin was not looking to the origins of the Universe, merely the origins of biology.

Because TToE is an emotional area, people feel that it has to qualify itself based on a different set of criteria than do other sciences. But, if the first question to a radioastronomer or geologist is not “but when and how did the Universe begin?” then it is equally irrelevant to demand an answer to that question of an anthropologist.

Axioms or postulates or presuppositions are not subjected to testing in the particular investigation or problem which cites them. They are simply declared up-front as "givens" upon which the following theory is based. Should one of them be falsified, the theory built on it will also fail. For instance, theories which held geocentricity as a postulate are now falsified.
Darwin took life as "given" - he didn't ask or answer the question "what is life v non-life/death in nature" nor did he posit a theory of abiogenesis.

In my view, Darwin should have formally declared life as an axiom or postulate in his theory. Contentious disagreements have multiplied from inferences due to that omission.

IMHO, the inferences aren't justified and aren't Darwin's fault. Yes, Darwin took "life" as a given without explicitly declaring that life exists. Falsifying that proposition would indeed cause TToE to fail that seems a totally irrational basis for complaint.

He also did not posit a theory of abiogenesis, or specify an "origin" of life. In the realm of modern science, that complaint seems to be an innovation developed specifically for TToE and "Big Bang" theories. I can't think of any other theories that get faulted for failing to formally declare the existence of or cause of creation of the physical entities they are investigating.