shadows. It is upon the central concept, without which the theory of evolution is hopeless: this misdirection that is mainly responsible for postponing the day when we the concept of a gene. Darwin had no proper unit of heredity, and so his can all live as comfortably with our new biological perspective as we do with account of the process of natural selection was plagued with entirely reathe astronomical perspective Copernicus gave us.
sonable doubts about whether it would work. Darwin supposed that offspring Whenever Darwinism is the topic, the temperature rises, because more is at would always exhibit a sort of blend or average of their parents' features.
stake than just the empirical facts about how life on Earth evolved, or the Wouldn't such "blending inheritance" always simply average out all differ-correct logic of the theory that accounts for those facts. One of the precious ences, turning everything into uniform gray? How could diversity survive things that is at stake is a vision of what it means to ask, and answer, the such relentless averaging? Darwin recognized the seriousness of this chal-question "Why?" Darwin's new perspective turns several traditional assump-lenge, and neither he nor his many ardent supporters succeeded in responding tions upside down, undermining our standard ideas about what ought to count with a description of a convincing and well-documented mechanism of as satisfying answers to this ancient and inescapable question. Here science heredity that could combine traits of parents while maintaining an underlying and philosophy get completely intertwined. Scientists sometimes deceive and unchanged identity. The idea they needed was right at hand, uncovered themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, ("formulated" would be too strong) by the monk Gregor Mendel and decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of published in a relatively obscure Austrian journal in 1865, but, in the best-science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that phi-savored irony in the history of science, it lay there unnoticed until its im-losophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as portance was appreciated (at first dimly) around 1900. Its triumphant philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage establishment at the heart of the "Modern Synthesis" (in effect, the synthesis is taken on board without examination.
of Mendel and Darwin) was eventually made secure in the 1940s, thanks to The Darwinian Revolution is both a scientific and a philosophical revo-the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, and others.
lution, and neither revolution could have occurred without the other. As we It has taken another half-century to iron out most of the wrinkles of that new shall see, it was the philosophical prejudices of the scientists, more than their fabric.
lack of scientific evidence, that prevented them from seeing how the theory The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-could actually work, but those philosophical prejudices that had to be based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It overthrown were too deeply entrenched to be dislodged by mere philo-demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of sophical brilliance. It took an irresistible parade of hard-won scientific facts planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of to force thinkers to take seriously the weird new outlook that Darwin ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic proposed. Those who are still ill-acquainted with that beautiful procession engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a can be forgiven their continued allegiance to the pre-Darwinian ideas. And single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudge-able, not the
sonable doubts about whether it would work. Darwin supposed that offspring Whenever Darwinism is the topic, the temperature rises, because more is at would always exhibit a sort of blend or average of their parents' features.
stake than just the empirical facts about how life on Earth evolved, or the Wouldn't such "blending inheritance" always simply average out all differ-correct logic of the theory that accounts for those facts. One of the precious ences, turning everything into uniform gray? How could diversity survive things that is at stake is a vision of what it means to ask, and answer, the such relentless averaging? Darwin recognized the seriousness of this chal-question "Why?" Darwin's new perspective turns several traditional assump-lenge, and neither he nor his many ardent supporters succeeded in responding tions upside down, undermining our standard ideas about what ought to count with a description of a convincing and well-documented mechanism of as satisfying answers to this ancient and inescapable question. Here science heredity that could combine traits of parents while maintaining an underlying and philosophy get completely intertwined. Scientists sometimes deceive and unchanged identity. The idea they needed was right at hand, uncovered themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, ("formulated" would be too strong) by the monk Gregor Mendel and decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of published in a relatively obscure Austrian journal in 1865, but, in the best-science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that phi-savored irony in the history of science, it lay there unnoticed until its im-losophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as portance was appreciated (at first dimly) around 1900. Its triumphant philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage establishment at the heart of the "Modern Synthesis" (in effect, the synthesis is taken on board without examination.
of Mendel and Darwin) was eventually made secure in the 1940s, thanks to The Darwinian Revolution is both a scientific and a philosophical revo-the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, and others.
lution, and neither revolution could have occurred without the other. As we It has taken another half-century to iron out most of the wrinkles of that new shall see, it was the philosophical prejudices of the scientists, more than their fabric.
lack of scientific evidence, that prevented them from seeing how the theory The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-could actually work, but those philosophical prejudices that had to be based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It overthrown were too deeply entrenched to be dislodged by mere philo-demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of sophical brilliance. It took an irresistible parade of hard-won scientific facts planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of to force thinkers to take seriously the weird new outlook that Darwin ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic proposed. Those who are still ill-acquainted with that beautiful procession engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a can be forgiven their continued allegiance to the pre-Darwinian ideas. And single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudge-able, not the
Similar Books
Kaldean Chronicles: Kaldean Sunset (Book I)
Maxwell Bond
The Firefighter and the Virgin Princess
Jemma Harte
Heretic
Bernard Cornwell
When Madeline Was Young
Jane Hamilton
Murder in the Smithsonian
Margaret Truman
Dark Inside
Jeyn Roberts
Men in Green Faces
Gene Wentz, B. Abell Jurus
Cops 02 - Love on the Run
Kori Roberts
