The Future of Darwinism

While the blathering know-nothings of ID pound their chests and predict the imminent demise of Darwin, real scientists are look to the future. A recent conference at Trinity College in England explored the future of Darwinian thinking in biology. Eors Szathmary (coauthor, with John Maynard Smith, of the excellent book The Major Transitions in Evolution) reports on the conference for Science. He writes:

Many regard the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection as one of the most important and powerful theories of our times, in the good company of the general theory of relativity and quantum theory. What will be Darwin's legacy in the 21st century? Will new work be mainly confirmatory, or can we expect new breakthroughs? What constitutes a Darwinian way of thinking in biology, or more broadly in science? Is it still timely to think in a genuine Darwinian way, or should we resort only to some basic Darwinian principles? These questions were discussed by researchers at a recent conference at Trinity College, Cambridge, UK (1), which was hosted by the president of the Royal Society, Martin Rees.

There was fair agreement among the participants that Darwin's way of approaching problems remains valid and should be encouraged if possible.

He goes on to breifly describe some of the major problems in biology and how Darwinian thinking may be useful in solving them. He closes with:

I do not believe in the end of science: Brilliant theories of the highest rank are yet to come. But I hold it unlikely that the Darwinian approach will be overthrown in the way Aristotelian physics had been: We firmly remain on Darwin's side in the 21st century.

Well said. The whole article is not very long, and I recommend the whole thing.


More like this

By way of ScienceBlogling John Lynch, I read that George Gilder calls biologists "Darwinian stormtroopers." In the same NY Times article, John West claims (italics mine): The [Darwinian] technocrats, he charged, wanted to grab control from "ordinary citizens and their elected representatives" so…
Olivia Judson is absolutely right - let's get rid of the terms "Darwinist" and "Darwinism". She writes, among else: I'd like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the…
Hofstra University solicits submissions for an interdisciplinary conference titled "Darwin’s Reach: A Celebration of Darwin’s Legacy across Academic Disciplines," to be held March 12-14, 2009. Primatologist Frans de Waal, paleontologist Niles Eldredge, and Judge John Jones (who wrote the Dover…
John hasn't read Origin. Not *this* John. And certainly not this one. It's this one - and what he proposes to do is blog while he reads the first edition of that work. I have to say I approve of the use of the first edition - subsequent editions are a little murkier and lack the freshness of…

No matter what subsequent theories people develop in physics, if they aren't equivalent to Newton's Laws in various limiting cases, they can be safely discarded. I think that given the evidence we have, it's safe to say that Darwinism is the biological equivalent of Newtonian Mechanics.

By Michael "Sotek… (not verified) on 27 Jul 2006 #permalink

uh oh! schism alert!

There was fair agreement among the participants that Darwin's way of approaching problems remains valid and should be encouraged if possible.

what? only 'fair'?!

watch the quote-miners run with this one!

Notice the generality of that comment. Remember how the "speed of light" was recently being discussed as a more fundamental constant which happened to apply to photons? I think the idea of evolution will likewise prove to be a basic theme for "how things work", which we happened to discover while examining our own world's biology.

By David Harmon (not verified) on 31 Jul 2006 #permalink

Humans are de-evolving everday. The more intelligent and inspired are having less children at a later age which means that the weaker of the human race are furthering their weaker genes. The reason behind this is that a better female genes are meeting our better male genes and realizing that to make it in today's society that in order to have a better child one must be financially established before furthering the human genome to increase the intellectual capacity of humans. Unfortunately lesser beings are procreating faster than the higher beings to saturate the gene pool with "white trash, ghetto trash, etc" faster than can be replineshed. Also, my feeling is that modern medicine has destroyed the natural process of evolution because the weak are allowed to reproduce instead of die and weed themselves out. That is why more cases of all diseases are becoming more prevalent.

By Clint Campbell (not verified) on 12 Aug 2006 #permalink

Evolution rules, science proves, creationism fools.

By Jeffrey Quillinan (not verified) on 16 Aug 2006 #permalink