Is Macroevolution a fact that is empirically established?
Neo-Darwinian evolution in the broad sense (i.e., Macroevolution) is a philosophical doctrine so lacking in empirical support that Mayr’s successor at Harvard, Stephen Jay Gould, once pronounced it in a reckless moment to be “effectively dead.” Yet neo-Darwinism is far from dead; on the contrary, it is continually proclaimed in the textbooks and the media as unchallengeable fact. How does it happen that so many scientists and intellectuals, who pride themselves on their empiricism and open-mindedness, continue to accept an unempirical theory as scientific fact? The answer to that question lies in the definition of five key terms. The terms are creationism, evolution, science, religion, and truth. Once we understand how these words are used in evolutionary discourse, the continued ascendancy of neo-Darwinism will be no mystery and we need no longer be deceived by claims that the theory is supported by “overwhelming evidence.” I should warn at the outset, however, that using words clearl
Related Questions
- One of my friends thinks that the fact that cancer rates have increased proves that evolution doesn exist. Does this sound a bit crazy to you?
- Why do Catholics try to earn their own salvation, despite the fact that salvation can only come as a free gift from Jesus Christ?
- Is Macroevolution a fact that is empirically established?
