Olivia Judson believes that it's time to jettison "Darwinism" from our vocabulary:

Why is this [Darwinism] a problem? Because it's all grossly misleading. It suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn't changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the "Origin."

He wasn't, and it has. Although several of his ideas -- natural and sexual selection among them -- remain cornerstones of modern evolutionary biology, the field as a whole has been transformed. If we were to go back in a time machine and fetch him to the present day, he'd find much of evolutionary biology unintelligible -- at least until he'd had time to study genetics, statistics and computer science.

I agree, although my reasons are very different. My problem with words like Darwinism, Darwinist, etc. is that they badly confuse Darwin's real legacy. Because "Darwinism" is a synonym for "evolutionary theory," people have been led to believe that Darwin's real scientific contribution was the idea of evolution. But that's wrong. The most radical element of Charles Darwin's masterpiece, On the Origin of Species, was not the concept of evolution. By 1859, evolution was already an old idea, promulgated by influential thinkers like Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Herbert Spencer. Many scientists had come to the conclusion that biological species weren't immutable, but were instead constantly changing in response to their environment.

What was most heretical about the Origin was its unrepentant materialism, the way it proposed a theory of everything that didn't depend on any unknowable and intangible forces. For Darwin, what you could see was all there was. Even the most metaphysical things, like life itself, had physical explanations. God wasn't dead, just unnecessary.

It didn't take long before Darwin began applying this materialist stance to all sorts of sacred mysteries, from the beauty of wild orchids to the rococo stylings of the peacock tail. As always, he explained the sublime and fantastic in concrete terms, so that orchid petals were instruments of pollination and the peacock was a by-product of sexual selection. Even Man was "descended" from some other species: Darwin's theory of life could accept no exceptions.

My problem with "Darwinism," then, is the exact opposite of Judson's. She dislikes "Darwinism" because she thinks the noun is applied too broadly, so that Darwin gets implicit credit for things like population genetics. But I think that "Darwinism" misleads because it causes people to underestimate Darwin's real achievement, which is far grander than merely getting people to believe that species change. If "Darwinism" should be a synonym for anything it should be the ideology of unrepentant materialism, which is the underlying philosophy of modern science.

More like this

Olivia Judson is absolutely right - let's get rid of the terms "Darwinist" and "Darwinism". She writes, among else: I'd like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the…
Billy Dembski, proud owner of a doctorate masters in theology, is very confused. In responding to Olivia Judson's argument that "Darwinism" is a useless phrase and that no sensible person ought to call evolutionary biology Darwinism (and, AFAIC, no sensible person does), Dembski picks out her…
I've never liked the term "Darwinism." To me it has always been more of a watchword that might indicate that I was talking to a creationist, a term I generally do not encounter unless I'm reading or hearing an argument against a straw-man version of evolution. (I'm not a big fan of "evolutionist,"…
Adam Goldstein has a post over at the Evolution: Education & Outreach blog which discusses a forthcoming paper by Genie Scott and Glenn Branch (both of the NCSE). Scott & Branch follow Olivia Judson in calling for the abandonment of the imprecise term "Darwinism". This is certainly…

I'm confused. Is "Darwinism" a widely used term in the science world? Because the only groups I know that use the term are those that believe in creationism (or its step child ID). Is the (mis)use of this term really a massive issue outside of that group?

"Darwinism" is nothing but an insult. It needs to be retired. Like "Framing".

I don't like the terms because, as Ian said, it is the creationists that mostly use the term. When a creationist uses the term he/she is implying that it is a religion, giving weight to the "science is just another religion" ignorance.

It irks me when I hear people like Dawkins use the term.

Nobody mention to drop out the term "darwinism" because it was associated with imperialism, colonialism, rampant capitalism,war, or even racism, and other Spencer-like hyperbolic concepts.

Neverthles, how we could understand the history of science if we not use the names of pionners or school´s founders to know what we are talking about.

Any proposition for an alternative name?

Ulrich Kutschera of the University of Kassel has suggested introducing the term "Darwin-Wallace principle of natural selection" (Nature 453:27, 2008), which neatly avoids the political implication of "-isms."

Nice tip! James F.
I forget about the new phrase of Ulrich Kutschera and it is a very good alternative name, that also recognize Wallace part on all this.

'If "Darwinism" should be a synonym for anything it should be the ideology of unrepentant materialism, which is the underlying philosophy of modern science.'

A philosophy that will, I predict, expire when "the Doors of Perception are cleansed" and not by drugs, either, but by a new knowledge of the world.

I'd say problems with Darwinism arise when you ask: Could the emergence of new appropriately adapted species arise merely by chance?