Some have left comments (which I have deleted) to the effect of “scientists once accepted X, but now accept -X, therefore why should one put stock in acceptance of evolutionary theory?” This is obviously a complicated issue, and there is a whole domain of philosophy of science which is not even an obscure field (e.g., Popper & Kuhn are relatively well known names). But I think the problem with this sort of statement is that more often scientific progress occurs like so:<\/p>\n
X +\/- 10 ? X +\/- 1 ? X +\/- 0.1<\/p>\n
Scientific models become more precise and are refined so as to generate more fruitful predictions. It seems more accurate to say that Relativity did not overturn Newtonian Mechanics so much as extend, supersede and refine. \u00a0R. A. Fisher’s Genetical Theory of Natural Selection<\/a> did not overturn Darwin’s original formulation of the process by which evolution was driven by natural selection, rather, it added a mathematical formality which aided in the process of verification and refutation.<\/p>\n Why am I posting so much about science? \u00a0First, I do think it is fair to say that the Right has a “Science Problem.” \u00a0But secondly, my own conservatism is grounded and framed in the scientific understanding of human nature, at least to the extent we understand it. \u00a0Any conservatism which is empirical and takes the idea of a human nature seriously must ultimately assimilate the most recent findings of the evolutionary & behavioral sciences.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Some have left comments (which I have deleted) to the effect of “scientists once accepted X, but now accept -X, therefore why should one put stock in acceptance of evolutionary theory?” This is obviously a complicated issue, and there is … Continue reading