Replies

I am not to a “god of the gaps” either, but I disagree that scientists are as free of dogmatism as you seem to think. Especially at the elementary level there is a tendency in teaching evolution not to look critically at DARWIN’s original theory and to admit how much of it is inadequate. My personal objection is that men like Haeckel took Darwin’s findings and just ran with it, admitting no objections even after more measured Darwinists such as Huxley were willing to admit short-comings. In other words, Haeckel made the theory his pet and a whole generation of biologists were taught a lot of stuff that is not true. By about 1940 there was a reaction, and a willingness to accept criticism, and men like Julian Huxley were able to save the theory but only by radically amending it. Even so, there is an educational lag that you need to consider. High school students are still being taught what was conventional wisdom fifty years ago. Furthermore, there is a tendency to dismiss all the damage that was caused by a cavalier application of evolution to every branch of human knowledge.The appropriation of it by men like Spencer had a negative effect on society and—I think-still does. Bryan may have known little about science, but his crusade against evolution was against the social darwinism of his youth, which justified the law of the jungle as applied to society. I agree totally that we should follow the evidence, which means that the research should be as narrowly focused as possible. Just accept that evolution is NOT the explanation of everything, certainly not what makes man what he is.