Evolutionism


 * This page is about the origins and modern uses of the terms and concepts of evolution, evolutionist, and evolutionism,'' particularly before Darwin; for other uses, see evolutionism (disambiguation). For technical details of the origin of species, see evolution.

The words evolutionism and evolutionist have three related usages:


 * Before 1859, the terms referred to the advocacy of theories about the evolution of everything material: suns, moons, planets, earth, life, and civilization, including social evolution.
 * The term evolutionist may refer to someone who studies evolutionary biology, but because the -ist suffix accentuates belief rather than facts, most scientists prefer using the term evolutionary biologist instead of evolutionist, and this usage is rare.
 * Today, the words are often used by creationists as derogatory terms to refer to the advocacy of ideas that the earth, universe, life, or humans evolved without divine intervention; the terms are particularly directed at biological evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life.

Evolutionism before 1869


Charles Darwin wrote his entire 1859 First Edition of Origin of Species without using the word evolution in it. The word evolution in popular use in 1859 applied to a speculative explanation of how the world and life could be created from chance, probabilities, and the mere physical properties of atoms without ever an intervention of a Creator. For example in 1836, the month after Darwin returned from collecting his specimens and data on the Beagle, the The Times summarized "Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise: Geology And Mineralogy Considered With Reference To Natural Theology," and that 1836 review already contained the creationist argument that evolution was wrong because all variety of animals were found in the same geological strata: "The investigation of the newer transitionary strata assures us by their remains of the cotemporaneous existence of the four divisions of the animal kingdom, vertebrata, mollusca, articulata, and radiala--a fact which at once and for ever annihilates the doctrine of spontaneous and progressive evolution of life, and its impious corollary, chance." (London Times, Nov. 15, 1836, p. 3, col. E)

Though Darwin continued to exclude the word evolution from the first five editions of Origin of Species, Darwin's contemporaries, notably Herbert Spencer argued publicly that the theory of evolution explained how the universe, the world, animals, plants, civilization, ethics, laws, and art would result from the probabilities inherent in atoms that found themselves in favorable circumstances. For example, Spencer concerned himself with explaining how human culture and civilization would result from mere probabilities inherent in favorable circumstances even in the absence of a Creator's plan for how people should live. A Creator was not required to explain civilization, order, ethics, law, harmony, or beauty. Accordingly in 1851, eight years before Darwin's First Edition of Origin of Species, Spencer wrote: "[C]ivilization no longer appears to be a regular unfolding after a specific plan; but seems rather a development of man's latent capabilities under the action of favourable circumstances; which favourable circumstances, mark, were certain some time or other to occur. Those complex influences underlying the higher orders of natural phenomena, but more especially those underlying the organic world, work in subordination to the law of probabilities." 

Like Spencer, Thomas Huxley concerned himself with explaining how a world of sunlight, seas, rocks, gases, and trace minerals without a Creator could generate the full span of life, intelligence, and civilization. And according to Huxley, he argued often with Spencer about what mechanism could cause the "transmutation" from one type of animal to another, but Spencer could not provide a convincing mechanism. And in Huxley's words, "even my friend's rare dialectic skill and copiousness of illustration could not drive me from my agnostic position. I took my stand upon two grounds: firstly, that up to that time, the evidence in favor of transmutation was wholly insufficient; and, secondly, that no suggestion respecting the causes of the transmutation assumed, which had been made, was in any way adequate to explain the phenomena." 

According to Huxley, he could not believe the creationists, because they had no convincing evidence. "And, by way of being perfectly fair, I had exactly the same answer to give to the evolutionists of 1851-8." 

But according to Huxley, Darwin's 1859 Origin of Species provided the first explanation that was better than creation. "That which we were looking for and could not find, was a hypothesis respecting the origin of known organic forms, which assumed the operation of no causes but such as could be proved to be actually at work. We wanted, not to pin our faith to that or any other speculation, but to get hold of clear and definite conceptions which could be brought face to face with facts and have their validity tested. The 'Origin' provided us with the working hypothesis we sought." 

Not surprisingly, when Huxley tried to explain Darwin's working hypothesis to creationists, he encountered interesting resistance to examining reality. One observer noted the following event where Huxley in 1860 attempted to get the audience to deal with the empirical data on "Origins."


 * I was happy enough to be present on the memorable occasion at Oxford when Mr Huxley bearded Bishop Wilberforce. There were so many of us that were eager to hear that we had to adjourn to the great library of the Museum. I can still hear the American accents of Dr Draper's opening address, when he asked `Air we a fortuitous concourse of atoms?' and his discourse I seem to remember somewhat dry. Then the Bishop rose, and in a light scoffing tone, florid and he assured us there was nothing in the idea of evolution; rock-pigeons were what rock-pigeons had always been. Then, turning to his antagonist with a smiling insolence, he begged to know, was it through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey? On this Mr Huxley slowly and deliberately arose. A slight tall figure stern and pale, very quiet and very grave, he stood before us, and spoke those tremendous words - words which no one seems sure of now, nor I think, could remember just after they were spoken, for their meaning took away our breath, though it left us in no doubt as to what it was. He was not ashamed to have a monkey for his ancestor; but he would be ashamed to be connected with a man who used great gifts to obscure the truth. No one doubted his meaning and the effect was tremendous. One lady fainted and had to carried out: I, for one, jumped out of my seat; and when in the evening we met at Dr Daubeney's, every one was eager to congratulate the hero of the day. I remember that some naive person wished it could come over again; and Mr Huxley, with the look on his face of the victor who feels the cost of victory, put us aside saying, 'Once in a life-time is enough, if not too much.'

There are also other versions of this same event from other observers who claimed to have been there. 

Development of the terms evolution, evolutionist, and evolutionism in Darwin's time
In 1869, Thomas Huxley used the term evolutionism to refer to gradual geological processes when he wrote of the "three schools of geological speculation which I have termed Catastrophism, Uniformitarianism, and Evolutionism." (Scientific Opinion, Apr. 28, 1869, p. 487/1) By 1872, in some scientific circles, the term evolutionism was used only to refer to life-form processes such as natural selection. Under this emerging usage, the term evolutionism specifically did not apply to either geological processes or to the origin of life as in abiogenesis. Thus, one reviewer wrote, "Evolutionism does not propose to explain the unfolding of life out of dead matter." (E. Fry, Spectator, Sep. 21, 1872, p. 1201)

Though Darwin had excluded the words evolution and evolutionist from the first five editions of Origin of Species, he imported both of the terms evolution and evolutionist into his Sixth Edition in 1872, as illustrated in the following examples.
 * "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."
 * "It is admitted by most evolutionists that mammals are descended from a marsupial form; and if so, the mammary glands will have been at first developed within the marsupial sack."

In 1872, the London Times published a review of Darwin's book The Expression of the Emotions. Darwin attributed much of the human emotional capability to an inheritance from the common ancestors of today's animals:  "A fierce sneer, in which the upper lip is retracted and the canine tooth exposed on one side alone, Mr. Darwin ventures to say, 'reveals man's animal descent.'"  The reviewer finds fault with the mechanical determinism in Darwin's analysis that attributes too much to "our early progenitors" and not enough to the person's consciousness. Then the reviewer says: "His [Darwin's] thorough-going 'evolutionism' tends to eliminate from the developed human form any relations beyond those of the bare mechanism of animal existence." (London Times, Dec. 13, 1872; pg. 4, col A)

During this period, evolutionism was used to label scientific theories that explained the presence of humans on this earth without assistance from divine intervention. For example, one opponent of Darwin's theory of evolution said, "Evolutionism . . . excluded creation and theism." (Sir John W. Dawson, The Story of the Earth and Man (1873), p. 348)

Early History of Evolutionism
Summary of the First Chapter of Robert Carneiro's Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History (First chapter available as an "excerpt" at Amazon.com)

Use in the evolution/creation controversy
Today, the scientific community rarely uses either of the words evolutionist or evolutionism. However in America, the National Center for Science Education does use the related term "anti-evolutionism" to label the organized political and religious movement that opposes the teaching of evolution in public schools. For example, the National Center for Science Education website is dedicated to "defending the teaching of evolution in public schools," and that website offers the "resource" of a page about "Dealing with Anti-Evolutionism." 

In contrast, the words evolutionist and evolutionism are widely used by creationists and others in the United States who are opposed to the theory of evolution; they use those two words to imply that the scientific community's attachment to the theory of evolution is a matter of religious faith and is just another -ism, not a matter of scientific proof.

Furthermore, Young Earth creationists sometimes use the term evolutionism to attack the empirical methods of science generally, such as attacking geology and astronomy which have concluded that the Earth and the Universe are billions of years older than the young-earth creationists believe.

Opponents of evolutionary theory may also use the words evolutionist and evolutionism to characterize the philosophical systems that they attack, such as atheism, agnosticism, Secular Humanism, rationalism, and materialism. Also the opponents of evolution argue that the evolutionist faith in evolutionism entices men into extremist political ideologies such as fascism, communism, and Marxism. Additionally, the opponents argue that the evolutionist's belief in evolution leads to a selfish disregard for the value of life as manifested in eugenics, assisted suicide, and abortion. The pun "evil-utionism" provides a convenient insult to make fun of those who accept evolution as the origin of human life.

In 1994, John Peloza, a High school biology teacher in California, U.S.A., sued his school board in federal court, claiming that he was being forced to teach the "religion" of "evolutionism". The federal court dismissed the case, holding that Peloza's suit was "frivolous" and requiring Peloza to pay the school board's attorneys' fees and court costs. When Peloza appealed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that 1) "evolution" and "evolutionism" were synonymous, 2) "evolution" and "evolutionism" say nothing about "how the universe was created" or "whether or not there is a divine Creator," 3) "evolution" and "evolutionism" are not religions so the state can teach them in public schools as long as "evolution" and "evolutionism" do not state the "belief that the universe came into existence without a Creator," 4) Peloza's suit was not frivolous so he did not have to pay the school board's attorneys' fees and court costs, but 5) the Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court in dismissing Peloza's case thus allowing the state school boards to continue requiring biology teachers to teach "evolution" and "evolutionism."