While Nature magazine is preparing something about Darwin’s enduring legacy here is a piece from Darwin’s own writings
doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
which can be found in the excellent Stanford Encyclopedia article about religion and science. Clearly, that is the problem of unguided evolution. I liked the definitions of science (there are many) but are disappointed by the solutions of the demarcation problem.
Giving plausible necessary and sufficient conditions for science, therefore, is far from trivial; and many philosophers of science have given up on the â€œdemarcation problem,â€ the problem of proposing such conditions … Perhaps the best we can do is point to paradigmatic examples of science and paradigmatic examples of non-science … The sciences are enormously varied; there is the sort of activity that goes on in highly theoretical branches of physics (for example, investigating what happened during the first 10^âˆ’43 seconds, or trying to figure out how to subject string theory to empirical check). But there is also the sort of project exemplified by an attempt to learn how the population of touconderos has responded to the decimation of the Amazon jungle over the last 25 years…
So would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind?