It should be obvious that the elimination of fact/value distinctions to create ‘science’ is an invalid procedure. But in the reign of scientism it is taken for granted.
T. H. Huxley’s Critique One of the ironies of the Darwin debate lies in the skepticism of its most vocal defender, Huxley, who warned Darwin on the eve of publication of the overemphasis on natural selection. He also later saw the flaw in the theory by asking why, if natural selection is the case, we always oppose it in practice? This question forces us to look beyond Darwinian assumptions for the evolutionary source of our social values and ethical sense. There must be something else! And it must surely be visible in history (which includes the ‘history’ of evolving hominids), suggesting that history and evolution are not rigidly separated.
Fact/Value Dichotomies Related to this is the way that, looking at history, we see direct evidence of the emergence of values as key to development. That is a powerful clue to the limits of reductionist explanation. Is a ‘science’ of evolution in the usual sense really possible? The Darwin debate is almost endless, but the standard paradigm fails here at the first step.