The Link between Coronavirus and Darwin according to Pervez Hoodbhoy: A Critical Response
This paper provides a critical response to Pervez Hoodbhoy’sarticle that first appeared in Dawn, Pakistan’s leading newspaper in April2020. Hoodbhoy, a well-known physicist in the country and a former associateof the Nobel laureate Abdus Salam, titled the article ‘Corona - Our Debt toDarwin.’ The ar...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
2020
|
| In: |
Intellectual discourse
Year: 2020, Volume: 28, Issue: 2, Pages: 365-386 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | This paper provides a critical response to Pervez Hoodbhoy’sarticle that first appeared in Dawn, Pakistan’s leading newspaper in April2020. Hoodbhoy, a well-known physicist in the country and a former associateof the Nobel laureate Abdus Salam, titled the article ‘Corona - Our Debt toDarwin.’ The article’s main contention is that coronavirus reaffirms the truthof Darwin’s theory of organic evolution by means of natural selection thatemphasises random variation and survival of the fittest as its main tenets.Hoodbhoy fully embraces this theory leading him to adopt a confrontationalideological position against religion. He also contends that Darwin’s naturalselection is the key to unravelling the mysteries of coronavirus and tosuccess in delivering the needed vaccines. This paper seeks to rebut both ofHoodbhoy’s contentions through arguments drawn from several disciplines,especially history and philosophy of science, evolutionary biology, theology,and traditional medicine. It argues that the contentions are premised on twomain assumptions that are weak and questionable. First, Darwinian naturalselection has always been central to evolutionary biology. Second, biology haswell established knowledge about viruses, particularly coronavirus. This papershows that the two assumptions are not supported by contemporary knowledgein biology. It argues that Hoodbhoy’s contentions are more motivated by hissectarian evolutionist ideology than by scientific considerations. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2289-5639 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Intellectual discourse
|