Someone in all this brouhaha (I can’t remember whom and can’t find the comment online) claimed that only creationists use the phrase “Darwinian Fundamentalist”. The phrase actually originated with Stephen Jay Gould (New York Review of Books, June 12 1997) for the “conviction that natural selection regulates everything of any importance in evolution, and that adaptation emerges as a universal result and ultimate test of selection’s ubiquity.” He cites Maynard-Smith, Dawkins and Dennett as being “ultra-Darwinists” and thus Darwinian fundamentalists. In fact, Dennett (speaking in March 2006) agreed with Gould:
The late Steve Gould was really right when he called Richard [
LewontinDawkins] and me Darwinian fundamentalists. And I want to say what a Darwinian fundamentalist is. A Darwinian fundamentalist is one who recognizes that either you shun Darwinian evolution altogether, or you turn the traditional universe upside down and you accept that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the cause but the fairly recent effects of the mechanistic mill of Darwinian algorithms. It is the unexceptioned view that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the original driving engines, but recent effects that marks, I think, the true Darwinian fundamentalist”
If a Darwinist can be a fundamentalist, can they be evangelical?
Marked by militant or crusading zeal [Webster]
Eager to share one’s enthusiasm with others; hortatory, proselytizing. [OED]
Yes, of course. Dawkins, for example, is definitely an evangelical Darwinian.
Is there such a thing as an evangelical atheist? Obviously. Again, Dawkins is one. As are PZ and many of his commentators.