Evolution: Education and Outreach

In a provocative and informative paper entitled “Don’t Call it Darwinism” in Evolution: Education & Outreach (vol 2:90-4), Eugenie Scott and Glenn branch advocate abandonment of the term “Darwinism.” Though they stress that the term shouldn’t be used as a synonym for “evolutionary biology,” I think the clear implication is that the term ought to be abandoned wholesale. Olivia Judson makes a similar point in a blog posting back in July of last year. This is good advice. In the discussion of this paper on Genomicron, on which there appears a post about the paper, the suggestion is made that abandoning a term because it’s used by those one doesn’t agree with—in this case, creationists—is a mistake. The idea seems to be that we ought to hold our ground come what may. In this case, there isn’t much ground to hold concerning this particular term, or else we have permitted ourselves to accept terms of debate introduced by those we disagree with. Scott and Branch note that increasing the circulation of “Darwinism” is a part of a creationist strategy for discrediting evolutionary science by exploiting the ambiguity of the term. If there were some clear utility to “Darwinism” and its cognates, it might be worth defending. In point of fact, there are many other more precise terms and phrases that can, on any given use of “Darwinism” (except those intended to exploit its ambiguities) be used instead. These include “the theory that the main motive force behind evolution is natural selection;” “the claim that all life descends from a common ancestor;” “a naturalistic world-view;” or even “the survival of the fittest.” The latter is not recommended but is nonetheless clearer than “Darwinism.” Practitioners and teachers of a science as controversial as evolutionary biology owe it to themselves, their students, and the public to disambiguate, and, if possible, not to introduce ambiguities in the first place.

Paul Griffiths (”What is innateness” The Monist, 85(1): 70-85) makes a similar point concerning “innateness.” He identifies three senses of this term. First, calling a trait innate might be intended to point out that it’s inherited; second, it might be intended to point out that it is developmentally fixed, that is, its development is not easily altered or stopped; and third, it might be intended to point out that the trait is adaptive. Each of these senses differs from one another. If a trait is developmentall fixed, it need not have evolved by natural selection, nor be inherited; not all adaptive traits are developmentally fixed; and not all inherited traits are adaptive or developmentally fixed. Griffiths suggestion is that, rather than use “innate,” scientists and educators should indicate which of the three senses they intend. As in the case of evolution and “Darwinism,” “innate” can circulate in the public in undesirable ways. For instance, one might say that a certain trait is innate in certain human beings, when all that’s meant is that its inherited; this might cause some, unaware of the ambiguity, to conclude that the trait is developmentally fixed, that is, cannot be changed in adults.

An important differences between the ambiguity of “innateness” and “Darwinism” is that, in the latter case, ambiguity is promoted and exploited by those who wish to discredit evolutionary biology, while in the case of the former, the ambiguity results from the language itself, and is not promoted by anyone, because the community of its users are interested in promoting understanding, learning and accuracy. Fallacies of ambiguity are to be avoided—rather than used strategically in advocacy in a kind of linguistic and conceptual cynicism intended to play at once on the public’s lack of understanding about Darwin and evolution, and fears that science and religion are incompatible, or that science is a battleground for ideology, rather than a truth-directed form of inquiry driven by curiosity and intellectual integrity.

by Gregory, T. Ryan

Natural selection is one of the central mechanisms of evolutionary change and is the process responsible for the evolution of adaptive features. Without a working knowledge of natural selection, it is impossible to understand how or why living things have come to exhibit their diversity and complexity. An understanding of natural selection also is becoming increasingly relevant in practical contexts, including medicine, agriculture, and resource management. Unfortunately, studies indicate that natural selection is generally very poorly understood, even among many individuals with postsecondary biological education. This paper provides an overview of the basic process of natural selection, discusses the extent and possible causes of misunderstandings of the process, and presents a review of the most common misconceptions that must be corrected before a functional understanding of natural selection and adaptive evolution can be achieved.

DOI: 10.1007/s12052-009-0128-1
Online Date: 4/9/2009
Print publication date: 6/1/2009
View article on SpringerLink