Abstract

It is argued that the assessment of the strength of the evidence for the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection offered by Michael Ruse in the Philosophy of Biology is in one respect too weak and in the other too strong. His claim that artificial selection provides at best analogical evidence for the theory is shown to rest on a spurious distinction between artificial and natural selection. His argument that Darwinian theory, unlike its competitors, accounts for the cytological and genetic data is demonstrated to be unwarranted and fails to differentiate the actual degrees of evidential support provided by cytology and genetics for parts of differing and competing theories of evolution. The evidentially secure foundations of Darwin's theory are not challenged in this paper, only Ruse's account of their nature.