And yet Newtonian science has not been "replaced" by a "better" theory. It continues to be the best description we have of Nature when the phenomena under observation are so little affected by relativistic and quantum effects that such effects are for all practical purposes negligible. E.g., the trajectory of an apple falling from a tree is not observably affected by relativity and quantum effects. Though they are still present, the extremely high velocities involved in relativistic effects, and the extreme smallness and indeterminacy of quantum "objects" are typically not necessary considerations in describing the gravitational motion, to a sufficient degree of accuracy, of a falling apple in the "macroworld" of the Newtonian paradigm..
Now, post-relativity and quantum theory, the Newtonian science of motion and mechanics is widely regarded as a "'special case" of a more general description of nature which has its root in the quantum world. Yet for all practical purposes, it continues to serve as our "trusty friend."
Something similar may eventually happen with Darwin's theory. (I wouldn't rule it out in principle.) It may end up being a "special case" of a more general and universal description of Nature. To the extent that Nature itself increasingly gives evidence of being "informed" in some fashion, and given the fact that Darwin's theory is incapable (evidently) of dealing with the problems of life and consciousness, we shouldn't find this surprising.
I am speaking of the Einsteinien "replacement" of Newtonian physics. As I said, when the new theory replaced the older, the underlying events did not magically disappear, and the replacement theory did account for all known facts and events. You accurately pick up on the nuances.
Now, post-relativity and quantum theory, the Newtonian science of motion and mechanics is widely regarded as a "'special case" of a more general description of nature which has its root in the quantum world. Yet for all practical purposes, it continues to serve as our "trusty friend."
Well stated, BB. A "larger" theory or "super theory" certainly stepped in and was eventually embraced by science -- using the scientific tools which we use now.
I am truly pleased that you note that Newtonian Physics wasn't really "replaced" but it is close enough to make my point. F=ma applies across the board for most situations and almost all we encounter on the planet Earth (again, using an example). Obviously I need an example of a Scientific Theory that was usurped by another to note the downstream effects and the ability of science to accommodate new information.
Something similar may eventually happen with Darwin's theory. (I wouldn't rule it out in principle.) It may end up being a "special case" of a more general and universal description of Nature. To the extent that Nature itself increasingly gives evidence of being "informed" in some fashion, and given the fact that Darwin's theory is incapable (evidently) of dealing with the problems of life and consciousness, we shouldn't find this surprising.
Indeed it may, BB. But it hasn't. And those who are pursuing abiogenesis know that there is a possibility that what they discover may change some of the linchpins in TToE, But I suspect the concept won't be defeated or undermined -- Evolution as a stochastic process is pretty much a given (unless and until your new theory comes to light).
As far as consciousness goes, you do indeed walk up to the problem -- when did God introduce a soul into what we now call Homo Sapiens? Which step along the evolutionary path did God point to and say "this shall be the first being with morals?" I am not sure science can or should answer this question, although there are indeed anthropologists working on it.
After a point, one must just give it up to God and say "well, I know you created all these processes, and I will work to understand them, but some things will have to wait until I stand before You -- and I hope I live my life good enough to see You and get the answers."
That changes the underlying science not a whit.
Darwin was not a prophet - he couldn't foresee DNA and information theory much less quantum field theory or string theory.
I strongly believe his theory will eventually be seen as a "special case" within a comprehensive theory of biological life.