Fuller makes the following remarks:
" ....this syndrome in the case of Neo-Darwinism is that the
theory has become rife with internal interpretive tensions, which philosophers
have tolerated by loosening their own criteria for a good scientific
theory. This shift in philosophical standards probably reflects the strong
cultural standing of Neo-Darwinism."
(my take, replace cultural with ideological) and
"... It was the scientific backlash to such shamelessly critical philosophising
that provided an audience for Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn, two
avowedly ‘post-critical’ philosophers who defended normal science as a
(take the debate on what is meant by "species: as an example) and
".. (1) ‘Neo-’: There is no ‘Neo-Newtonian’ paradigm because for the two
hundred years following the publication of Principia Mathematica, physics
fully exploited Newton’s theoretical resources to try to resolve standing
anomalies in his original account of the cosmos, especially relating in
matters relating to light and energy."
(yet how many times is ToE compared to Newtonian physics and gravity?) and a particularly insightful comment:
"...Darwin’s theory of evolution of
natural selection was widely taken to have already run its course in
biology. At that point, Darwin was being kept afloat largely as a political
ideology and a suggestive sociological framework, what we now call
‘Social Darwinism’. Thus, the phrase ‘Neo-Darwinian’ testifies to the role
of Mendelian genetics in enabling Darwin’s scientific resurrection: It
finally provided an explanatory mechanism for natural selection, a process
that had been previously understood only in terms of the shape of natural
history that it allegedly produced. Nevertheless, we might still wonder
about the exact point of grafting Darwin’s original theory to a science,
genetics, whose own research trajectory can be understood without any
specific commitment to natural evolution,
I cannot cut and paste the full paper and for those who value an honest exchange, the paper is accessible and well worth the read. I am not advocating any particular view on Fuller - but I have gone through some of his material, and one of his books, and I find him to be a keen intellect. His remarks on ID are also useful.
I am startled by your comment:
since we have witnessed on this site debates, for example, on Adam and original sin, and the reaction to this, I cannot see any other branch of natural science that has caused so much controversy and disagreement as Darwinian thinking, and yet we have this almost naïve insistence that "it is not so". I have pointed out the strong ideological slant to ToE and Fuller also pointed out the way the thing is constantly "patched up". This is driven by ideological commitments, not dispassionate scientific enquiry. I noticed in one paper that Wagner, who is probably the foremost worker on maths of popgen, question aspects of the current thinking - this is healthy.