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," either.) It may have been useful in the past, when evolution by natural selection (as popularized by Darwin) was competing with other systems like Neo-Lamarckism and orthogenesis, but today it doesn't have any relevance. (It should also be noted that A.R. Wallace wrote a book on natural selection called Darwinism. Despite his own work on the same subject he calls evolution by natural selection "Darwin's theory.") If anything it continues the myth that Darwin is the be-all and end-all of evolutionary science, and while he certainly deserves a lot of credit On the Origin of Species is not some kind of secular Bible where every word is dogma.
Olivia Judson, as she explains in her newest essay, also wants to be rid of the charged term. As John and Jonah have picked up on this, as well, although the general scarcity of the term among those who recognize evolution as a reality means that most are already agreed. The post is perhaps more important to those who have been misled by the persistent use of the word "Darwinism" by creationists, and I hope Judson's article serves to set a few people straight.
- Log in to post comments
Reportedly, even Richard Dawkins has had second thoughts about the D-word, now that the point has been raised.
I wasn't there, and I haven't heard anything else about it.
Wow, how incredibly strident and smug of Dawkins to change his mind. (Someone's going to say it.) In The God Delusion, Dawkins takes exception to cosmologists and physicists using the term "God" meaning the laws of nature.
Those are some pretty compelling arguments. There are so many labels that can be bandied about. I also especially dislike "evolutionist", Brian. In my head, I always associate "isms" with art movements or ideologies. Not facts.
I don't mind Darwinian that much, possibly because my training in physics has accustomed me to terms like Newtonian and Einsteinian: to me, an -ian is less assertive than an -ism. The branch of physics called Newtonian mechanics is just a package of ideas generally associated with Isaac Newton. He didn't invent all of it, and the mathematical tools we use today are slicker and more useful than the ones he possessed. You can solve a problem with Newtonian gravity in the morning and with Einsteinian gravity in the afternoon (the math is just harder for the second option). They don't get jealous of one another.
So, yeah, I'm basically OK with reserving "Darwinian" to talk about biological ideas which Darwin himself had or might plausibly have had. It could serve as a historical designation, in other words, for ideas which don't use the apparatus of genetics, statistics, ecology, developmental biology, etc.
Yeah, I was the one who wrote that bit about Dawkins which Blake quote above. In person, Dawkins comes across as one of the least "strident" and "smug" people you will ever meet. He's actually very soft spoken, polite, meticulous in his use of language, intelligent, and generous with his time.
A lot of people use "Darwinian evolution" for evolution characterised by gradual random variation and natural selection. I think it's a handy term especially for pointing out analogies to non-biological systems but others may find it confusing.
I've thought for years that calling an evolutionary biologist a "Darwinist" is a lot like calling a quantum physicist an "Einsteinist."
This reminds me of those Nisbet/Mooney 'framing' arguments; I'm generally not favourably impressed by the idea that we should stop using a term because some non-biologists will misunderstand it and use it as a pretext for straw-man attacks.
OTOH, the comparisons made already with usage of Newtonian/Einsteinian (but non-usage of the corresponding isms) show why the case for 'Darwinism' is quite distinct from that of 'Darwinian'. Also, the connotations of -ism and (some) -ist words have changed quite a bit over the past century, from a body of theory and practice to (more frequently) a dogmatic ideology, so Wallace's Darwinism (or Haeckel's Darwinismus) just don't mean what they used to.
Me personally (i.e. in my idiolect), I don't ever use 'Darwinism', and by 'Darwinist' I would mean either a near-contemporary and follower, or later scholar of Darwin. e.g., one might say 'Steve Gould was a Darwinist' in the latter sense, but not the former, and certainly not in the sense of being a Darwinian, i.e. a latter-day believer in the power of natural selection.
... and when I say 'believer' I refer, of course, to evidence-based belief rather than the other kind (which doesn't deserve the term).
For me, the use of "Darwinism" is legitimate when referring to Darwin's own views and ideas, including such outdated ones as pangenesis.
John; As I said in the post itself there is more reason to dump "Darwinism" than the fact that creationists love it. It seems to be rarely used these days anyway, and I don't see much reason to pick it up. Like many of us have written this year already there is much more to evolutionary science than Darwin, so if you're actively comparing competing ideas at the end of the 19th century "Darwinism" (compared with "Neo-Lamarckism") might be useful as it does describe the state of the argument. Today it does not, however, and I don't really see any compelling reason to keep it in use as a synonym for evolutionary science.
H.H., I was kidding with the strident and smug comment. I wholeheartedly agree, Richard Dawkins has always seemed to me to be polite and articulate, even when my own blood starts pumping.