[tacticalogic]

Except Darwin's theory. It seems irreducible to mathematical formulae. In just this sense it appears "unscientific" in a key respect.

That's not unique to Darwin's theory.

"Hard" sciences like physics lend themselves easily to mathematical abstraction.

"Softer" sciences like biology do not. They deal in physical attributes and develop taxonomies rather than units of measure, but they must deal in attributes that can be observed and described.

The complaint may be worth consideration, but if we're going to talk about changing it there are going to be consequences far beyond just calling one theory into dispute.

[betty boop]

"Hard" sciences like physics lend themselves easily to mathematical abstraction. "Softer" sciences like biology do not. They deal in physical attributes and develop taxonomies rather than units of measure, but they must deal in attributes that can be observed and described.

As for problems associated with what can be "observed and described," I think I may have anticipated your point and tried to answer it here, at post #249.

Why does biology have to be a "'softer' science?" Supposedly biology deals with the biggest questions that can possibly be asked; and you are suggesting that as a scientific discipline, it cannot become more rigorous? If so, why not?