Strictly speaking, this is a theory, however reasonable.
We know from history that life can be surprising, hence, from a truth point of view, it's better to be careful, avoid rushing to conclusions, especially if this implies closing all other doors.
If we don't, then we're sowing the seeds for discord for when our theories will need to be updated. And it's reasonable to think that they will, as, so far, most (all?) scientific theories has evolved.
IIRC, Darwin's views on evolution require patching e.g. to take into consideration chaotic incidents affecting mortality/genes propagation (e.g. asteroids, epidemics).
Maybe if that theory keeps accumulating patches, it'll end up very different from where it started!
Again, as I've said, it's a reasonable theory. Using the word "theory" isn't about casting doubt, it's purely about intellectual honesty, at least as far as I'm concerned.
The way it's taught is often in an absolute way. The way science is taught in general is in an absolute way. That's because humans struggle immensely with nuance.
Typical traditional Eastern views transcend this creationism/evolution duality for example; one more door to explore.
Theories need to be considered for what they are, theories, and not dogmatically, for science to move forward. Evolution is a theory, and in its current form, already distant from Darwin's.
It's particularly amusing to have this discussion in the context of evolution, given that we have observed theories to systematically (AFAIK) evolve.
Why can't we extrapolate about the evolution of the theory of evolution then?
I think the reactions here are because a lot of creationist(others), will say things like "that is only a theory", thus "it was god, duh, I just owned you libtard".
“Why can’t we extrapolate about the evolution of the theory of evolution then?”
The first quote answers the second. The dogma usually blocks even questioning of evolution in research venues, liberal communities, etc. If one opens with evidence, they’re usually countered with dogma using argument from authority or mockery as if dissent equals stupidity. Also, major opponents are hitting it right at the roots which might make the other points moot until the roots are defended or improved.
For these reasons, we usually can’t make it that far even if we’d be willing to do it. Also, I don’t know the modern versions in that much depth compared to an actual biologist. We’d probably need qualified skeptics in here for accuracy on our own side if we got that deep. :)
Like, how most people actually believe in science: they're incapable of understanding, nor reproducing most results (e.g. flat earthers, reproducibility issues in research).
A half-baked religion, which doesn't even encourage morality, what could go wrong…
https://youtu.be/FPeyJvXU68k?feature=shared
He correctly predicted the harms that would come from science without morals. Additionally, he observed Scientism is much like magic from older times. He makes comparisons. The end result is a tool of authoritarianism.
> Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.
While it may be true locally in time, science may transcend itself over time. Furthermore, some aspects of the scientific development are poorly studied/understood/taken into account in how we do science, such as all those discoveries stemming from dreams & cie[0]. Einstein in particular was well-known to have had many valuable insights while being in a half-asleep state.
That's to say, objectively, the evolution of science is shaped by chaotic events, which AFAIK isn't embraced by contemporary institutionalized science. Perhaps because it's too close to the content of religions of old.
[0]: someone on HN copy-pasted this a while ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37731752