This article is about concepts called Darwinism. For biological evolution in general, seeEvolution. For modern evolutionary theories, seeModern synthesis (20th century). For Wallace's defence of the theory of natural selection, seeDarwinism (book).
Darwinism is aterm used to describe atheory of biologicalevolution developed by the English naturalistCharles Darwin (1809–1882) and his contemporaries. The theory states that allspecies of organisms arise and develop through thenatural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, andreproduce. Also calledDarwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts oftransmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance after Darwin publishedOn the Origin of Species in 1859, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories. English biologistThomas Henry Huxley coined the termDarwinism in April 1860.[1]
English biologistThomas Henry Huxley coined the termDarwinism in April 1860.[2] It was used to describe evolutionary concepts in general, including earlier concepts published by English philosopherHerbert Spencer. Many of the proponents of Darwinism at that time, including Huxley, had reservations about the significance of natural selection, and Darwin himself gave credence to what was later calledLamarckism. The strictneo-Darwinism of German evolutionary biologistAugust Weismann gained few supporters in the late 19th century. During the approximate period of the 1880s to about 1920, sometimes called "the eclipse of Darwinism", scientists proposed variousalternative evolutionary mechanisms which eventually proved untenable. The development of themodern synthesis in the early 20th century, incorporating natural selection withpopulation genetics andMendelian genetics, revived Darwinism in an updated form.[3]
While the termDarwinism has remained in use amongst the public when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued by science writers such asOlivia Judson,Eugenie Scott, andCarl Safina that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[4][5][6] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of theMoravian scientist andAugustinianfriarGregor Mendel,[7] and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding ofheredity. He naturally had no inkling of later theoretical developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing ofgenetic drift, for example.[8][9]
Huxley, upon first reading Darwin's theory in 1858, responded, "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!"[15]
While the termDarwinism had been used previously to refer to the work ofErasmus Darwin in the late 18th century, the term as understood today was introduced when Charles Darwin's 1859 bookOn the Origin of Species was reviewed by Thomas Henry Huxley in the April 1860 issue ofThe Westminster Review.[16] Having hailed the book as "a veritableWhitworth gun in the armoury of liberalism" promotingscientific naturalism overtheology, and praising the usefulness of Darwin's ideas while expressing professional reservations about Darwin'sgradualism and doubting if it could be proved that natural selection could form new species,[17] Huxley compared Darwin's achievement to that ofNicolaus Copernicus in explaining planetary motion:
What if the orbit of Darwinism should be a little too circular? What if species should offer residual phenomena, here and there, not explicable by natural selection? Twenty years hence naturalists may be in a position to say whether this is, or is not, the case; but in either event they will owe the author of "The Origin of Species" an immense debt of gratitude.... And viewed as a whole, we do not believe that, since the publication of Von Baer's "Researches on Development," thirty years ago, any work has appeared calculated to exert so large an influence, not only on the future of Biology, but in extending the domination of Science over regions of thought into which she has, as yet, hardly penetrated.[2]
These are the basic tenets of evolution by natural selection as defined by Darwin:
More individuals are produced each generation than can survive.
Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable.
Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive.
When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.
"Darwinism" soon came to stand for an entire range of evolutionary (and often revolutionary) philosophies about both biology and society. One of the more prominent approaches, summed in the 1864 phrase "survival of the fittest" by Herbert Spencer, later became emblematic of Darwinism even though Spencer's own understanding of evolution (as expressed in 1857) was more similar to that ofJean-Baptiste Lamarck than to that of Darwin, and predated thepublication of Darwin's theory in 1859. What is now called "Social Darwinism" was, in its day, synonymous with "Darwinism"—the application of Darwinian principles of "struggle" to society, usually in support of anti-philanthropic political agenda. Another interpretation, one notably favoured by Darwin's half-cousinFrancis Galton, was that "Darwinism" implied that because natural selection was apparently no longer working on "civilized" people, it was possible for "inferior" strains of people (who would normally be filtered out of thegene pool) to overwhelm the "superior" strains, and voluntary corrective measures would be desirable—the foundation ofeugenics.
In Darwin's day there was no rigid definition of the term "Darwinism", and it was used by opponents and proponents of Darwin's biological theory alike to mean whatever they wanted it to in a larger context. The ideas had international influence, andErnst Haeckel developed what was known asDarwinismus in Germany, although, like Spencer's "evolution", Haeckel's "Darwinism" had only a rough resemblance to the theory of Charles Darwin, and was not centred on natural selection.[18] In 1886,Alfred Russel Wallace went on a lecture tour across the United States, starting in New York and going via Boston, Washington, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska to California, lecturing on what he called "Darwinism" without any problems.[19]
In his bookDarwinism (1889), Wallace had used the termpure-Darwinism which proposed a "greater efficacy" fornatural selection.[20][21]George Romanes dubbed this view as "Wallaceism", noting that in contrast to Darwin, this position was advocating a "pure theory of natural selection to the exclusion of any supplementary theory."[22][23] Taking influence from Darwin, Romanes was a proponent of both natural selection and theinheritance of acquired characteristics. The latter was denied by Wallace who was a strict selectionist.[24] Romanes' definition of Darwinism conformed directly with Darwin's views and was contrasted with Wallace's definition of the term.[25]
The termDarwinism is often used in the United States by promoters ofcreationism, notably by leading members of theintelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "-ism") based onphilosophical naturalism,atheism, or both.[26] For example, in 1993,UC Berkeley law professor and authorPhillip E. Johnson made this accusation of atheism with reference toCharles Hodge's 1874 bookWhat Is Darwinism?[27] However, unlike Johnson, Hodge confined the term to exclude those like American botanistAsa Gray who combined Christian faith with support for Darwin's natural selection theory, before answering the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism."[28][29]
Creationists use pejoratively the termDarwinism to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast asdogmatic and inflexible in their belief.[30] In the 2008 documentary filmExpelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which promotesintelligent design (ID), American writer and actorBen Stein refers to scientists as Darwinists. Reviewing the film forScientific American,John Rennie says "The term is a curious throwback, because in modern biology almost no one relies solely on Darwin's original ideas ... Yet the choice of terminology isn't random: Ben Stein wants you to stop thinking of evolution as an actual science supported by verifiable facts and logical arguments and to start thinking of it as a dogmatic, atheistic ideology akin toMarxism."[31]
However,Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish themodern evolutionary synthesis, which is sometimes called "neo-Darwinism", from those first proposed by Darwin.Darwinism also is used neutrally by historians to differentiate his theory from other evolutionary theories current around the same period. For example,Darwinism may refer to Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift andgene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in thehistory of evolutionary thought—particularly contrasting Darwin's results with those of earlier theories such asLamarckism or later ones such as the modern evolutionary synthesis.
In his 1995 bookDarwinian Fairytales, Australian philosopherDavid Stove[35] used the term "Darwinism" in a different sense from the above examples. Describing himself as non-religious and as accepting the concept of natural selection as a well-established fact, Stove nonetheless attacked what he described as flawed concepts proposed by some "Ultra-Darwinists". Stove alleged that by using weak or falsead hoc reasoning, these Ultra-Darwinists used evolutionary concepts to offer explanations that were not valid: for example, Stove suggested that thesociobiological explanation ofaltruism as an evolutionary feature was presented in such a way that the argument was effectively immune to any criticism. English philosopherSimon Blackburn wrote a rejoinder to Stove,[36] though a subsequent essay by Stove's protégéJames Franklin[37] suggested that Blackburn's response actually "confirms Stove's central thesis that Darwinism can 'explain' anything."
In more recent times, the Australianmoral philosopher and professorPeter Singer, who serves as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics atPrinceton University, has proposed the development of a "Darwinianleft" based on the contemporary scientific understanding ofbiological anthropology,human evolution, andapplied ethics in order to achieve the establishment of a moreequal and cooperative human society in accordance with the sociobiological explanation of altruism.[38]
Inevolutionary aesthetics theory, there is evidence that perceptions of beauty are determined bynatural selection and therefore Darwinian; that things, aspects of people and landscapes considered beautiful are typically found in situations likely to give enhanced survival of the perceiving human'sgenes.[39][40]
^Costa, James T. (2014).Wallace, Darwin, and the Origin of Species. Harvard University Press. p. 274.ISBN978-0674729698
^Bolles, R. C; Beecher, M. D. (1987).Evolution and Learning. Psychology Press. p. 45.ISBN978-0898595420
^Elsdon-Baker, F. (2008).Spirited dispute: the secret split between Wallace and Romanes. Endeavour 32(2): 75–78
^Scott 2007, "Creation Science Lite: 'Intelligent Design' as the New Anti-Evolutionism", p.72
^Johnson, Phillip E. (31 August 1996)."What is Darwinism?".Access Research Network. Colorado Springs, CO. Retrieved4 January 2007. "This paper was originally delivered as a lecture at a symposium at Hillsdale College, in November 1992. Papers from the Symposium were published in the collectionMan and Creation: Perspectives on Science and Theology (Bauman ed. 1993), by Hillsdale College Press, Hillsdale MI 49242."
Petto, Andrew J.; Godfrey, Laurie R., eds. (2007) [Originally published 2007 asScientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism].Scientists Confront Creationism: Intelligent Design and Beyond. New York:W. W. Norton & Company.ISBN978-0-393-33073-1.LCCN2006039753.OCLC173480577.
.jpg)
