Ruse also describes what he calls "metaphysical Darwinism" [Ruse 1992] (as opposed to "scientific Darwinism")which is indeed a metaphysical system akin to a worldview, and which has expressed itself in numerous
extra-scientific philosophies, including Spencer's, Teilhard's, and Haeckel's, or even the quasi-mystical views of Julian Huxley. These must be considered separate to the scientific theory, and are often in contradiction to the actual scientific models.
Other than this, the "metaphysic" of evolution by selection is primarily a research-guiding mindset that has been extraordinarily fruitful where no others have been [Hull 1989]. However, as a metaphysic, evolutionary theory is fairly poverty-stricken. This is what should be true of a scientific theory; for the number of conclusions beyond the empirical evidence that can be conjectured is unlimited. Any theory that committed itself to a metaphysical conclusion as a logical inference would be almost certainly false.
Those who need Cosmic Meaning need not fear that any version of evolutionary theory prohibits it; although neither does nor can it support it. Those evolutionists who have either argued in favour of Cosmic Meaning on the basis of evolutionary theory, or have argued that there can be no Cosmic Meaning because things evolve, are both wrong.
The conclusions do not follow from the premises, simply because 'is' does not imply 'ought'.
Ca développe la pensée de Ruse et ca "déconstruit", si vous permettez l'expression, l'argument d'attaque de Johnson avancé par Emmanuel qui s'en prend au "Darwinisme métaphysique" pour entrainer avec le "Darwinisme scientifique" sans tenir compte des bases sur lesquelles s'appuie ce dernier, comme on l'a fait remarqué.
Bruno
|