Is Darwinism a science or pseudoscience?

Question

The scientific investigation of Darwinism is forbidden?

or the findings of such research ?

Answer 1

Darwinism is c**p.  Evolution is a science.

Answer 2

Interestingly enough, Darwin had his doctorates in theology. Of course we all know that evidence shows that Darwin was a little off on the exact origin of man, however the concepts he came up with are correct.

Creationism is threatened by logical thinking and evidence, because it points in the other direction. The creationists point at Darwin saying, we are right because Darwin was wrong.

This is a very flawed thought and again, doesnt stand up to reasonable thinking.

Evolution happened. We have the fossil evidence now that Darwin didn't have, and more comes in everyday.

So far, I have not seen any convincing evidence outside an extremely misinterpeted chapter of Genesis for Creation.

Answer 3

It seems to me the only folks who use the word "Darwinism" these days are out-of-date Creationists. Darwin was just a man as was Newton, but we don't call gravity "Newtonism", do we? Both our understanding of evolution and gravity have grown far beyond what their initial discoverers had accomplished. A scientific theory is not a man, nor does it depend on any person. It exists independently of any one person. So, it is both scientifically inappropriate and 150 years out of date to call evolution "Darwinism."  If you run across a paper that uses this term to describe the theory of evolution, you can be pretty sure you're dealing with pseudoscience.

What you really ought to be talking about is the science of evolution, which thousands upon thousands of scientists have contributed to. Evolution is about the most successful and richly confirmed theory in biology. In fact, it is really is the unifying theory of biology.

Answer 4

Darwinism is a word to describe the worldview for those trust in what Darwin taught about the origins of species.  Worldviews are not science, but more a philosophy or religion.  

For example, If one believes that everything that exists happened here by chance, one would likely hold a Darwinist worldview.

If one believes that the world was created by a superior being and this being continues to exist and interact in our daily lives, one would likely hold a Theist worldview.

Of course, there are many other worldviews held by all sorts of people throughout our planet.

Answer 5

What do you mean by Darwinism?

Do you mean evolution?  If so, why don't you say so?

Yes, there is an absolutely enormous amount of evidence in favour of evolution.

If it is counter-intuitive, so is much of modern science, such as special relativity, or quantum mechanics, but this is only because our human experience is based on medium-sized objects travelling at medium-sized speeds over medium-sized time periods.  When you look at extremes, our intuition tends to be completely wrong, as could be expected.  But almost all of modern science are based on these, as is most of modern technology (from spacecraft to GPS to microwave ovens) - all of which works, strangely enough....

.

Answer 6

If you think of it as being synonymous with evolution by natural selection, then yes, it's science.

It's definitely not pseudoscience - that's what ID/creationism is.

Answer 7

Darwinism is a derogatory term used by Creationist to classify anyone that accept evolution.

Answer 8

Your question reeks of the "teaching the controversy" tactic of Creationists.

1.) "Teaching the controversy" is used by Creationists in an attempt to cast doubt on the theory of evolution.  The idea appears to be that by disproving the truth of evolution then the only other natural answer will be Creationism.  (False dichotomy anyone?)

There isn't a controversy regarding evolution at all, beyond the one invented by Creationists.  Theories are modified based on data collected.  If the theory isn't supported by the data then it's changed to incorporate the new evidence.  In other words it's not monolithic or dogmatic (unlike *some* theories).  All scienctific evidence supports evolution.

2.) Using the word "Darwinism" ties the theory of evolution to a person.  This is to create the impression that evolution is some sort of cult of personality rather than the property of science.  This is intellectually dishonest.

3.) Your question seems to imply that the theory of evolution (and natural selection) is infallible or unchallengeable.  You seem to be under the impression that people aren't allowed to seek alternative explantions.  That is not the case at all.  If you want to posit other theories you are free to do so.  However, since simply saying something doesn't make it so, you must provide evidence supporting your theory.  This is where Creationists stumble.  They try so very hard looking for evidence disproving evolution yet they offer absolutely no evidence to support their own theory.

In summary, evolution is science.  Creationism is not sceince.  I would venture to say that Creationism isn't even pseudoscience because those who believe in it don't even try to offer any evidence supporting their theory.