There are few ideas that have the range and depth across the science spectrum

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't recognise 'romance' or 'mystical powers', I don't see where you get that from. Rather, the processes described are inevitable consequences deriving from fundamental forces of nature. In a purist sense, biological evolution only happens in biology but its value in interdisciplinary sciences derives from its interconnectedness with other fields of study, for instance a bigger picture of the history of Earth arises out of geology and biology combined when we look at geographic distributions of extant species in the light of our understanding of plate tectonics and geomagnetic dating.  When dating techniques as remote from each other as biological clock and radioisotope dating show agreement then we can have much greater confidence in the conclusions.  In a looser sense of the principal, evolution happens ubiquitously. Astronomers talk of stellar evolution and the evolution of galaxies. The Miller-Urey experiment opened our eyes to the concept of chemical evolution.  These are all processes of evolution, or the development and emergences of patterns over time in non-living systems and again, there is no element of mysticism in these observations, the patterns emerge inevitably as a consequence of underlying physical principals.  When a water droplet freezes into a beautiful symmetric snowflake, it is not magic, it is a manifestation of the laws of physics.

Manifestation of the laws of physics or whatever is what I am arguing.

You are arguing the title.

Many of the examples you give in your post are not darwinian evolution.

Self replication is biology.

[torridon]

Manifestation of the laws of physics or whatever is what I am arguing.

You are arguing the title.

Many of the examples you give in your post are not darwinian evolution.

Self replication is biology.

Well even if you restrict the scope to darwinian biological evolution, the reach of the theory is still vast.  If you are an epidemiologist, you cannot get by without understanding the principals of evolution.  Likewise if you are a virologist or a cell biologist or a zoologist or a geneticist or a biochemist or a microbiologist or an ecologist or a doctor or a vet ....  well you get the picture.  There are few ideas with such reach and scope of application.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well even if you restrict the scope to darwinian biological evolution, the reach of the theory is still vast.  If you are an epidemiologist, you cannot get by without understanding the principals of evolution.  Likewise if you are a virologist or a cell biologist or a zoologist or a geneticist or a biochemist or a microbiologist or an ecologist or a doctor or a vet ....  well you get the picture.  There are few ideas with such reach and scope of application.

All biological sciences.
Hardly argument for evolution fitting the title of the thread.
Or against my opening post.

[jeremyp]

The term ultradarwinianism was introduced to describe people who consider evolution as operative universally and beyond biology eg Dennett and Dawkins.

Dawkins advocates Smolin who has a Darwinian model of the multiverse.

I use the word niche with regard to these people to remind that the belief is not nor should be universal.

Those who hold the view are sometimes referred to as universal darwinians.

Here is Jay Goulds original article.Actually written prior to the New Atheist malarkey.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/06/12/darwinian-fundamentalism/

Just a point of information Stephen Jay Gould’s family name is Gould, not Jay Gould.