Opinion National Interest PoV 50-Word Edit

ThePrint On Camera Videos In Pictures

Society & Culture Around Town Book Excerpts Vigyapanti The Dating Story

More Judiciary Education YourTurn Work With Us Campus Voice

Opinion National Interest PoV 50-Word Edit

ThePrint On Camera Videos In Pictures

Society & Culture Around Town Book Excerpts Vigyapanti The Dating Story

More Judiciary Education YourTurn Work With Us Campus Voice

A growing list of scientists is questioning neo-Darwinism

Denis Noble, a fellow of The Royal Society, disagrees with the view of neo-Darwinism that all biological causation stems from the gene.

Some months ago, the National Council of Educational Research and Training, or NCERT, was in the news for having taken the decision to drop Darwin’s theory of evolution from Class 10 science textbook. As expected, this generated some debate. The scientists who were supporting the move failed to mention the now well-known and also quite well-argued opinion of a growing body of scientists — several of whom are very distinguished — that there are some serious problems with Darwin’s theory. 

However, lest I be misunderstood, I wish to state categorically that the rest of this article is an attempt to bring into focus some of the genuine issues that affect Darwin’s theory, and I am not trying to support Intelligent Design. All I wish is to ensure that some of the issues and concerns about Darwinism are brought to the attention of all and sundry because they do seem to carry weight.

Neo-Darwinism has benefitted greatly in the second half of the last century from advances in Mendelian genetics and molecular biology. The edifice thus constructed has for various reasons seemed solid and unassailable to a large part of the scientific community, and the Western world has been the fountainhead of this belief. Yet in many parts of the West, there is a growing number of well–regarded scientists and intellectuals who have raised some very strong and well-thought-out arguments about the lacunae that perforate the fabric of neo-Darwinism. 

Unfortunately, in my land, there has been a lamb-like and dogmatic acceptance of neo-Darwinism, and I hope to balance that a little with some sensible arguments espoused by the other side. For those who hold neo-Darwinism as sacrosanct, any criticism of Darwin is an attempt to slip in creationism. I wish to once again reassure the reader that such is not my intention. As much as I can see the writing on the wall, in the last few decades there has emerged a body of dissent from a variety of serious and very credible evolutionary scientists, mathematicians, molecular biologists, and others. To be sure, they do not propose an alternative theory so much as share the view that the assumptions of neo-Darwinism do not withstand empirical scrutiny and are unsound from a logical perspective. 

I propose to recount the arguments and reasoning put forth by some distinguished scientists and thinkers. The name that springs first and foremost in my scheme of alibis is that of........

© ThePrint