This was one of the popular, short-hand summaries of Darwin’s theories, which was wrong, as Qadgop notes. Unfortunately, it was seized on by certain thinkers in the 19th century and applied to theories of race and socieities. ‘Social Darwinism’ became a justification for aggression, dominance and imperialism. (See ‘The White Man’s Burden’ by Kipling for a quick poetic version.)
At its worst, the idea of ‘only the strong survive’ played right into the abhorrent perversions of the Nazis, so you don’t hear so much about ‘Social Darwinism’ nowadays. Not only is it not part of Darwin’s theories, it leads to particularly nasty results.
I only commented after a quick answer on the ? in the OP; maybe because of the subject title.
Just seems that many, and I am not taking any sides here, people rather quickly embrace a theory as soon as any irregularity may be exposed on the other side. Can’t explain them lights = space aliens sort of thing
Of all the scientific theories ever formulated by humans, there are only two that have always been true and will in all likelihood never be refuted by experience: Natural Selection and the Laws of Thermodynamics.
They are brilliant formulations that seem almost tautological, but they are not really tautologies. They are precise interpretations of the fundamental behaviors of matter and energy and living (reproducing) material entities.
Ummmm… that’s a pretty broad and absolute statement about the nature of nature, “truth” and scientific theory in general. There are many theories that are reasonably accurate and “true” within the band of phenomena they seek to describe. Newtonian Physics is one example. Newtonian Physics is not “un-true” as a theory, it is simply incomplete in certain respects. Quantum physics clarifies aspects of Newtonian Physics that allow for improved and extended descriptions of the physical world and as time passes there will be new paradigmatic supersets beyond quantum theory at some point.
On a similar note to posit Natural Selection and the Laws of Thermodynamics as immutable, non-refutable theories overstates the degree of certitude any theory can possess. The particulars of both theories (or any theory for that matter) are subject to refutation and change as our knowledge of the empirical universe grows. Like Newtonian theory just because theories “work” in the largest sense, does not mean they are complete and irrefutably accurate descriptions of the phenomena at hand.
Astro, I think I would disagree that the theory of evolution is analogous to Newton’s laws. I suppose it depends partly on what exactly you include in the theory of evolution, but I see it as more akin to Euclid’s geometric theorems.
IF there is differential success in reproduction, and IF inheritable traits affect reproductive success, THEN (and this is essentially a logical proof) populations will gain more traits that affect reproductive success positively (and less negative traits). This will always be true (leaving aside any nitpicking about my word choice or phrasing), just as any of Euclid’s theorems are true, given his postulates.
Now, it may turn out that a particular system we’re looking at may not satisfy the postulates of evolution (for instance, it may be that reproductive success in that system is determined by random chance), just as the curved surface of a sphere doesn’t satisfy Euclid’s postulates, but the theorem is no less true.
On the other hand, Newton’s laws make specific statements about the real world; statements that have been shown to not be true (though pretty good approximations for a lot of purposes).