> evolution - a recent scientific american article claimed that
> darwin had the greatest influence on scientific thinking in
> the world of any scientist in the last [some large number i
> forget of] years. survival of the fittest might be easily
> incorporated because its so simple (to the point of some large
> inaccuracies, i suspect?) and familiar in ordinary life.

I once heard an interesting comment about the spread of "evolution" to other fields. It was argued that it was *too* powerful of an idea, that too many fields were taking evolution as a metaphor to explain ideas in their own fields that may not be relevant. For example, people taking evolution & natural selection and applying it to morality, and coming up with social Darwinism. But the argument was that this over-application of evolution also occured in other fields of knowlege, with the implication that it was mis-used. I don't know if this is really a problem or if the argument was coming from someone who just plain didn't like evolution.

A possible counter-example is the idea of "catastrophe theory" that was originally developed in physics & math. This theory is no longer in favor in the physics community, but as a metaphor it has been quite useful to the social sciences, I think.
So, I guess my point is that intringuing scientific ideas can be used & misused in ways that may have little to do with the actual scientific value/purpose of the ideas in their original context. This is true both for other fields of knowlege, and for society.

--Eric