“Darwinism”

_{Barry Arrington

November 9, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I am not satisfied with our definition of “Darwinism” in the glossary over to the right of our home page. The definition is, I think, accurate as far as it goes, but it is incomplete and somewhat vague. In this thread I invite friend and foe alike to provide a brief definition of “Darwinism.” The best entry or a synthesis of the best entries will obtain pride of place as permanent fixture in the UD glossary. Thank you.

Comments

Mr Arrington: That's a 3,000 ft/s 0.50 cal hard-hitting attack definition if I have ever seen one! (If you see SB pointing a Ma Deuce like that your way, surrender. Lot less painful and messy than the alternative.) My concern is that the definition and discussion at NWE are not under control of UD, and in principle can vary at any moment. Here is a suggestion B, which slightly expands the existing definition and then incorporates the NWE discussion as a link for details: _______________ >>Darwinism – theories of evolution deriving from the work of Charles Darwin and Richard Wallace, as published from 1858 – 9 on. Subsequently, in the 1920's – 40's, in light of developments in genetics and related studies of evolutionary population dynamics a neo-darwinian synthesis led to the classical form of the modern evolutionary theory. The modern theory is based on the principle that evolution is in the main the result of chance variation and natural selection leading to descent with modification, from minor population variations (micro-evolution) up to origin of main body plans (macro-evolution). (The New World Encyclopedia provides more details here.) Currently, this theory is undergoing changes in light of various observed and proposed mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer and the like. Posters and commenters at Uncommon Descent often use “Darwinism” as a convenient short form for “[Neo-]Darwinian evolution,” but, unless it is specified in the context in light of the history of Darwinism as a broad cultural movement, there is no necessary reference to social or political doctrines, or philosophies of inevitable progress. >> _______________ I hope that captures the clarification that answers to the usual rhetoric. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

I like GEM of TKI's idea of incorporating the New World entry. Why should we re-invent this particular wheel. I also like StephenB's caveat. Here is what I propose: When ID proponents on this site use the term “Darwinism,” they are referring to Neo-Darwinism, also called the modern evolutionary synthesis, or Neo-Darwinian evolution (“NDE”), as described more completely in this entry from the New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Neo-Darwinism Of course, ID proponents do not agree with Darwinism. They believe that Darwinism is a metaphysical presupposition posing as a scientific theory. Grounded in materialistic ideology, it holds that purposeless, mindless, physical mechanisms, manifested as small genetic changes, can drive the evolutionary process to produce all observed complexity and biodiversity on earth. As such, it interprets all evidence in light of its own materialistic ideology and rules out, in principle, any possibility that any part of the evolutionary process could have been designed. Like the mythical bandit Procrustes, who reshaped the bodies of his unfortunate visitors to fit his iron bed, Darwinism reshapes biological evidence to fit its iron clad world view, saying in effect, “fit, damn you, fit.”Barry Arrington_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Straight face: Darwinism seeks to describe the origin of the species and the descent of man in naturalistic terms. Balloon version: Darwinism is a wicked clever way to get God out of nature and our [unkempt] hair.allanius_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Darwinism is the view that the evolution of all biological features on Earth, except those generated by human intervention, can be completely explained as a function of chance (unguided) variation acted on by natural (unguided) selection.William J. Murray_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

Oops, that should be iron bed, not iron [beds].StephenB_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Darwinism is a philosophical presupposition posing as a scientific theory. Grounded in materialistic ideology, it holds that purposeless, mindless, physical mechanisms, manifested as small genetic changes, can drive the evolutionary process to produce all observed biodiversity on earth. As such, it interprets all evidence in light of its own materialistic ideology and rules out, in principle, any possibility that the evolutionary process may have been designed. Like the mythical bandit Procrustes, who reshaped the bodies of his unfortunate visitors to fit his iron beds, Darwinism reshapes biological evidence to fit its iron clad world view, saying in effect, “fit, damn you, fit.”StephenB_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Here is how the word Darwinism will be used in the not to distant future: Darwinism - for a cult-like group of people to deny the obvious to the point of intellectual suicide and/or insanity, to be deluded by superfluous obfuscation, the practice of denying reality by constructing a elaborate imaginations,,, etc.. etc...bornagain77_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Darwinism: “The application of improbability theory to extrapolate hypothetical data for the advancement of extinct lepidopterists in societal hierachy.” (sorry... my selfish gene is hijacking this thread)Charles_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Darwinism: “The application of improbability theory to extrapolate hypothetical data for the advancement of deceased lepidopterists in societal hierachy.” (ok, I'll stop now... but haven't I demonstrated Darwinian motion?)Charles_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

Darwinism: “The application of improbability theory to extrapolate hypothetical data for the advancement of lepidopterology in societal hierachy.” (best)Charles_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Darwinism: “The application of improbability theory to extrapolate hypothetical data for the advancement of science in societal hierachy.” (much better)Charles_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Darwinism: "The application of improbability theory to extrapolate hypothetical data for the advancement of change in societal hierachy."Charles_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

Darwinism: "the idea that all life on Earth shares a common ancestry and that different species have arisen as a result of evolution: the process of natural selection acting upon mutations within populations competing for limited resources." I feel that this is a relatively neutral definition based heavily on Charles Darwin's "Origin of the Species" and reflecting popular evolutionist beliefs (which have not really been revised since Darwin!) I say 'mutations' instead of 'random muations' because of Darwin's lamarckist beliefs. I exclude explicit reference to intelligent design because of the inherently materialist phrase 'natural selection'.Chris Doyle_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT}

Null: NCSE et al are hoping to implicitly embed evolutionary materialism as a worldview into the foundation of science. Though they will hotly deny having such an agenda, that is the practical import of the a priori imposition of so-called methodological naturalism on the d3efiniiton of science they advocate, and as the US NAS and NSTA support. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

What about this one: Darwinism: The claim that information in biological systems was generated without the intervention of any intelligent agent at any stage of natural history. My reasons for this definition is that this is what Darwin has attempted to show. The particular mechanisms behind this process (i.e. natural selection, sexual selection, luck, etc, you name it) are all secondary and freely debated in the scientific journals.Alex73_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, You will see that I use the term, “view” at that point. that reflects my understanding — a sort of rough adaptation of Lakatos — that at the core of research paradigms/programmes, there lies a worldview-embedded cluster of concepts. Fair enough - I wasn't sure. I just happen to think that murkiness, that identification of metaphysical views with science itself, is tremendously common and a serious problem. The NCSE doesn't care about it, but someone has to.nullasalus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

F/N 3: I would replace the Wiki link on the ND synthesis with the NWE one, which is much better.kairosfocus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

Null: You will see that I use the term, "view" at that point. that reflects my understanding -- a sort of rough adaptation of Lakatos -- that at the core of research paradigms/programmes, there lies a worldview-embedded cluster of concepts. Science, when we come to this sort of core area, cannot neatly be separated from philosophy and even ideology. It is no secret that I object strongly to the embedding of evolutionary materialism as a controlling a priori in origins science. However, there is no one generally acknowledged definition of "science" and/or its methods and/or for warrant of its knowledge claims, that neatly accepts all credible cases and neatly rejects all non-credible ones. Consequently, when we speak of "science" we must recognise the general usage and then address the implicit philosophical and ideology/agenda issues. In this case, there is no question that the institutionally dominant view is evolutionary materialistic, or that the Neo_Darwinian view expresses that in the form that is similarly institutionally dominant. Just, that science is in desperate need of reform, similar to the Christian Church circa 1500. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: NWE has a very useful article on neo-Darwinism. Introduction:
Neo-Darwinism, also called the modern evolutionary synthesis, generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics as the basis for biological inheritance, and mathematical population genetics. Although this was not the historical meaning of the term neo-Darwinism, it has been the popular and scientific use of the expression since the synthesis of the 1930s. (See Origin of the term neo-Darwinism.) Other terminology used synonymously with neo-Darwinism are modern synthesis, evolutionary synthesis, and neo-Darwinian synthesis. Neo-Darwinism has been one of the most significant, overall developments in evolutionary biology since the time of Darwin. Bowler (1988) stated that there is "a sense in which the emergence of the modern synthetic theory can be seen as the first real triumph of Darwinism." Essentially, neo-Darwinism introduced the connection between two important discoveries: the units of evolution (genes) with the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). By melding classical Darwinism with the rediscovered Mendelian genetics, Darwin's ideas were recast in terms of changes in allele frequencies. Neo-Darwinism thus fused two very different and formerly divided research traditions, the Darwinian naturalists and the experimental geneticists. This fusion took place roughly between 1936 and 1947. While the modern synthesis remains the prevailing paradigm of evolutionary biology, in recent years it has both been expanded and challenged as a result of new developments in evolutionary theory. In particular, concepts related to gradualism, speciation, natural selection, and extrapolating macroevolutionary trends from microevolutionary trends have been challenged. Major figures in the development of the modern synthesis include Thomas Hunt Morgan, Ronald Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J. B. S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, William D. Hamilton, Cyril Darlington, Sergei Chetverikov, E. B. Ford, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, George Gaylord Simpson, and G. Ledyard Stebbins.
kairosfocus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, Short on time here, but I wanted to give one quick bit of input. You say, in part of your description... According to the dominant view, there exists no guidance by an intelligent agent, purpose, teleology or direction in evolution in an ultimate sense. I know you're taking this portion from my quote. But there's an important difference: I didn't call this theory scientific. You are. In fact, I've argued repeatedly that the claim that "there exists no guidance by an intelligent agent, purpose, teleology or direction in evolution in any ultimate sense" is a metaphysical, not scientific, claim. I agree that Darwinism (certainly under one reading) demands that position - and I argue that insofar is it demands that, the theory is not scientific. And of course I'm aware that some people insist that Darwinism demands this position and that it IS scientific - I disagree with them. Maybe you'll disagree on this point, but I just wanted to give that quick comment.nullasalus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

Footnote: It is worth the pause to excerpt the glossary's definition of evolution:
Evolution – “descent with modification”; envisioned as ranging from empirically observed minor population variations [e.g. finch beak lengths] to the proposed and widely believed (but, necessarily, not observed) origin of the major body plans of lifeforms over the ages through processes of chance variation and environmental selection pressures leading to differential reproductive success. Micro-evolution — a term of the art used to describe relatively minor population changes as has been empirically observed, often based on single-point mutations of DNA. For example, malarial resistance to chloroquine, and relative immunity tot he effects of malaria caused by sickle-cell anaemia Macro-evolution — generally used in the literature to address the theory of body-plan level changes and associated or claimed evidence.
kairosfocus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

Mr Arrington: An interesting issue. I have always thought the history is important, so that we understand that we are dealing with an evolving concept across 150 years. (And BTW, a read of Darwin's Descent of Man -- esp Chs 5 - 7 -- will show that application to man in modern cultured society, and social darwinism, were for decades deeply embedded; and that, from the pen of Darwin himself. That history must not be distorted, for unpleasant through it is, it is the truth. Similarly, the contribution of Mr Wallace should not be suppressed. [This has a side-light on the current design theory as Wallace went on to propose a theory of Intelligent Evolution.]) As the definition currently stands in the glossary:
Darwinism – theories of evolution deriving from the work of Charles Darwin and Richard Wallace, as published from 1858 – 9 on. Subsequently, in the 1920?s – 40?s, in light of developments in genetics and related studies of evolutionary population dynamics a neo-darwinian synthesis led to the classical form of the modern evolutionary theory. Currently, this is undergoing changes in light of various observed and proposed mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer and the like.
I suggest modification in light of the above, on the lines of key insertions rooted in GP's suggestions as influenced by Nullasalus, and taking on board a key cautionary point by Timaeus: ________________________ Darwinism – theories of evolution deriving from the work of Charles Darwin and Richard Wallace, as published from 1858 – 9 on. Subsequently, in the 1920?s – 40?s, in light of developments in genetics and related studies of evolutionary population dynamics a neo-darwinian synthesis led to the classical form of the modern evolutionary theory. In the closing summary in Ch 15 of Origin of Species (6th Edn.), Darwin summarised the original theory as the implication and application of certain laws of nature acting on one or a few original biological forms, namely:
. . . Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.
In the more modern form, the currently dominant [Neo-]Darwinian theory of evolution is a scientific theory which explains the origin of diversity and complexity we observe in the living world according to a model of evolution (descent with modification, acting at micro-level and/or macro/body plan-scale) from a common ancestor. This process of descent with modification is in the main based on the (gradual and) sequential action of two factors: a) random or chance variation at the genetic level (RV) b) natural selection (NS), an effect due to differential survival of the variant sub-populations in their specific environment. These two explanatory mechanisms are said to be dependent only on genetic laws of mutation and inheritance, then on the effect of environmental conditions and the dynamics of competing populations, with physical-chemical laws and probability in the background. (These forces and factors have been summed up by Jaques Monod -- echoing Plato in his The Laws, Bk. X and also Democritus' dictum: "[e]verything existing in the universe is the fruit of chance and necessity" -- in the title of a famous 1971 book: "Chance and Necessity.") According to the dominant view, there exists no guidance by an intelligent agent, purpose, teleology or direction in evolution in an ultimate sense. (Theistic adherents to Darwinist views typically suggest that God so set up the laws of the cosmos, that life originated and diversified by the automatic unfolding of the above and similar mechanisms, with no "smoking guns" pointing to a direct "God of the gaps" interventions to supernaturally create new varieties of life.) Currently, the theory of evolution is undergoing changes in light of various observed and proposed mechanisms of variation such as horizontal gene transfer and the like. It is also being challenged by the design theory movement, which argues that certain features in the cell, such as the functionally specific, coded, complex digital information in DNA cannot be credibly explained without intelligent direction. Posters and commenters at Uncommon Descent often use “Darwinism” as a convenient short form for “[Neo-]Darwinian evolution,” and in this usage, unless it is specified in the context in light of the history of Darwinism as a broad cultural movement, there is no necessary reference to social or political doctrines of any kind, or to any philosophical notion of inevitable progress. _________________________ Does that help us in the work of elaboration? Does it give a fair summary [including of theistic evolution], with enough history of ideas context to navigate the issues, and yet without being overly complex, nor implying that the theory is "fact" or else that it is outright falsified? Have I missed any key points? [And BTW, does the above bring out the reason why a short, history of ideas type summary instead of a mini essay was used to begin with?] All this reminds me of the hidden complexities of legal drafting or making mathematical definitions or physical ones! The balance of clarity, relative brevity and avoiding lurking shoals is always a difficult exercise. Hope the above helps. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

Well, I realize that I have not even used the word "evolution" in the definition. That's maybe too much. So, I suggest to change it as follows: "Neo-darwinian theory is a scientific theory which explains the origin of diversity and complexity we observe in the living world according to a model of evolution (descent with modification) from a common ancestor, based on the (gradual and) sequential action of two factors:"gpuccio_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

Hi Barry, What do you think of this definition? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis#Summary_of_the_modern_synthesis My only quibble with it is that it fails to address the question of whether genetic variation is random or not. Here's a quote from Mark Ridley's 2004 book, Evolution (section 4.8, page 88):
A basic property of Darwinism is that the direction of evolution, particularly adaptive evolution, is uncoupled from the direction of variation. When a new recombinant genotype arises, there is no tendency for it to arise in the direction of improved adaptation. Natural selection imposes direction on evolution, using undirected variation.
http://books.google.com/books?id=HCh7n6zuWeUC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=evolution+is+variation+random&source=bl&ots=MTW3vQK-my&sig=Vokkjoa7a32L3TX_WPW7ahGmECM&hl=en&ei=nWDaTKflNMaPcb_zxMMG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=evolution%20is%20variation%20random&f=falsevjtorley_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

First of all, I share many of the considerations made by Timaeus, especially that we should talk of "neo-darwinian" rather than darwinian. I will do so, even if it is implicit that, for brevity, it is admissable to shorten it to "darwinian". My second point is that we should use the word "theory", and not "evolution", in the name, because that is what it is: a scientific theory. The concept of evolution is part of the theory. So, I would go with something like: "Neo-darwinian theory is a scientific theory which explains the origin of diversity and complexity we observe in the living world according to a model based on the (gradual and) sequential action of two factors: a) random variation at the genetic level (RV) b) natural selection (NS), an effect due to different survival of the variants in their specific environment. These two explanatory mechanisms are dependent only on physical laws and on the laws of probability (necessity and chance), and in no way they require an intelligent guide or are teleological." The last paragraph is in reality redundant, because it is simply a consequence of the definition, but I have added it for clarity. We could simply drop the "gradual" (which is not in itself essential, though it is a characteristic of most standard forms of neo-darwinian theory), to include also Gould and similar variants.gpuccio_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT}

T, I think that “Darwinian evolution” is the best term, because it distinguishes Darwin’s theory of evolution, which is resolutely anti-teleological, from other theories of evolution which are teleological in one way or another (e.g., Lamarck, Teilhard, Conway Morris, Denton). This is the exact point I hope gets straightened out here. That 'anti-teleological' aspect seems to be a key problem ID proponents have with Darwinism, while at the same time it seems to be a component some self-described Darwinists TEs reject as well. It seems that to accept teleology - particularly, guidance by God, even if it's scientifically undetectable - is to reject Darwinism as it is often spoke of around here, even if common descent, natural selection, etc are accepted.nullasalus_{November 10, 2010
November
11
Nov
10
10
2010
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

The problem with using "Darwinism" is that it might be confused with "social Darwinism" or other views engendered by Darwin's theory. I think that "Darwinian evolution" is the best term, because it distinguishes Darwin's theory of evolution, which is resolutely anti-teleological, from other theories of evolution which are teleological in one way or another (e.g., Lamarck, Teilhard, Conway Morris, Denton). However, one could argue that even "Darwinian evolution" is ambiguous, because it might mean Darwin's original view, or the view of later scientists who adopted and corrected his ideas, i.e., the proponents of "The Modern Synthesis," also popularly called "neo-Darwinism" (Mayr, Dobzhansky, Gaylord Simpson, etc.). Such a person would argue that we would be more precise to say "neo-Darwinian evolution." However, I find it cumbersome to keep saying "neo-Darwinian evolution," so for short I like to just say "Darwinian evolution." No one holds to the pure original Darwinian form of evolution, anyway; Darwinians since about the 1930s have essentially all been neo-Darwinians, so there is little chance that anyone will be confused by the shorter form. So my proposed term and definition would be: "Darwinian evolution: "The theory that all species have been derived from a small number of original forms, or perhaps only one, via a purely naturalistic mechanism in which random mutations and natural selection in combination are the primary engine of change." And I'd add: "Footnote: "UD writers often use "Darwinism" as a convenient short form for "Darwinian evolution," and in this usage, no reference to social or political doctrines of any kind, or to any philosophical notion of inevitable progress, is implied." T.Timaeus_{November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

I guess it depends on what you are trying to do. The theory of evolution has changed a lot since Darwin. Do you try to capture what all these theories have in common, what Darwin orginally thought, or how the theory stands nowadays?markf_{November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

A good start would be to use the correct term: Evolution.Graham_{November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

Barry, Thanks for this. I'm very curious to see what the resulting definition is - and I'll throw in two prominent descriptions of Darwinism I've come come across. * An evolutionary theory claiming that species and traits in nature have developed principally via natural selection and in a strictly gradual way. Also includes the positive claim that there exists no guidance by an intelligent agent, purpose, teleology or direction in evolution in an ultimate sense. * An evolutionary theory claiming that species and traits in nature have developed principally via natural selection and in a strictly gradual way. Neither requires nor rules out guidance by an intelligent agent, purpose, teleology or direction in evolution in an ultimate sense.nullasalus_{November 9, 2010
November
11
Nov
9
09
2010
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply