Science is an inherently self-correcting process. When new information comes in, we update

our theories to accommodate it. Thus, it's always changing, always becoming gradually

more correct. But some claim that such change indicates inherent weakness and unreliability,

and they've leveled this charge squarely at evolutionary biology, disparagingly calling

it revisionist Darwinism. Well, today we're going to find out whether this most thoroughly

proven theory truly is all that week. And that's coming up next, Unskeptoid.

Hey everyone, Brian here. A quick favor. We are conducting an audience survey. We'd be really

grateful if you could take just a few minutes and answer our survey. This is the kind of thing

that's sort of an engineering and marketing necessity to make the whole free podcast ecosystem

flourish. So please check it out. Also, surveys are fun. You get to talk about yourself.

Please visit survey.prx.org slash skeptoid to take the survey today. That's survey.prx.org slash

skep.co.id. Thanks.

You're listening to Skeptoid. I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com. Revisionist Darwinism,

the theory that couldn't sit still. Today we're going to take a step back from the skeptics

rock of Gibraltar evolution and examine whether it truly has any value as a theory

since we keep having to revise Darwinism. Darwin's original theory of evolution was generally

correct, but it was highly incomplete and has been growing and evolving, no pun intended,

as we've learned new information since the origin of species was published in 1859.

No evolutionary biologist doubts the fundamentals of evolution, which are essentially as Darwin

described them, even though there are numerous minor points that are still under debate or still

incomplete. This hardly invalidates the entire theory as a whole. Every significant major point

of evolution is proven correct by the evidence. The fact that evolutionary biologists are still

...