including me, disagree strongly, arguing that post-Darwinian evolutionary biology was often really poor-quality science (notoriously following Haeckel in spinning unsustainable analogies between embryology, ontogeny, and paleontology, phylogeny) and that the synthesizers of the 1930s had to cleanse the Augean stables and return to the thinking of the Origin (melded admittedly with the new genetics) before further advance was possible (Ruse, 1996).
These controversies, however, must be the topic of another essay. Here, I rest confident that I have shown why, for a philosopher and historian of science, analyzing the Darwinian revolution is such a worthwhile challenge.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
"14 The Darwinian Revolution: Rethinking Its Meaningand Significance--Michael Ruse."
In the Light of Evolution: Volume III: Two Centuries of Darwin.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.
Please select a format: