Among biologists, the ideological successor to Darwinism should have been called “Huxleyism”, but people would confuse Julian with Thomas, so it was called the “modern synthesis” instead. This dogma has also finally run its course, being replaced by something else that doesn’t really have a good name yet. But “evo-devo” is the leading candidate for theories of evolution that recognize that selection acts on eggs and juvenile organisms just as much as adults.

As for : “What the field doesn’t have, however, and doesn’t need, is a single, comprehensive, falsifiable theory to test or buttress with evidence. The modern evolutionary synthesis isn’t like that.”

You present no evidence for this claim, and it is not clear on the face of it that it’s true. To the extent that it is in fact a synthesis, the modern evolutionary synthesis is “a single, falsifiable to test or buttress with evidence.” It’s a theory with several component parts, an attribute it shares with several other scientific theories, including quantum field theory, string theory, and relativity theory. Those components are: the principles of common descent, random modification, and natural selection, coupled with Mendelian genetics, and the mechanisms of inheritance as embodied in DNA. Each of those component parts is itself supported by a substantial body of empirical evidence, and, therefore, so is the theory that combines them into a single comprehensive structure.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by timkastelle: Eric Drexler on why we shouldn’t talk about ‘Darwinism’ http://bit.ly/5gvqAA...

Darwin’s fundamental insight is that genuinely novel, adaptive complexity could (and Dawkins argues, “can only”) emerge in the universe through blind variation and selective retention of improvements. This principle has broad applications, and deep implications for understanding the past, present, and potential future of the world. It is the strength of the principle, not its weakness, that has provoked controversy.

In what matters most, Darwin was entirely right. He has had my profound respect since I first learned of his ideas and began to understand his courage in setting those ideas in print for the whole world to see.

I wrote that earlier this last year (2009), when I had a friendly dispute regarding research I was conducting about heat dissipation and the use of SWCNTs. I was told it was not possible to do what I was demonstrating because it didn’t fallow rules laid out over 150 years ago.

And yet, it was working against all the rules.

As we all know, Man will never live in space either. (Just don’t tell the astronauts and cosmonauts living on ISS.

I agree with placing labels on scientific results based upon the area of research, as opposed to someone’s name.

Darwin was the instigator of research that has brought about amazing results into humankind knowing more and guessing less. Do I think he should be knighted or receive sainthood. Not even close.

Do I honour and respect his intellect, persistence and courage. Naturally.

What I also know to be true is that I do not have any idea all that went on in his head. I was not there. So, as with all history, we only know what someone else decided was the best to preserve.

Thanks.
Cheers.