Evolutionism


 * This page is about the origins of the terms and concepts of evolution, evolutionist, and evolutionism as used by Charles Darwin and his contemporaries. For technical details of the origin of species, see evolution; for other meanings, see evolution (disambiguation).

The words Evolutionism and evolutionist has three related usages:


 * Originally the term meant the advocacy of the theories of social evolution.
 * The term evolutionist may be one who studies evolutionary biology; because of the ambiguation with a supporter of "evolutionism", most prefer the term evolutionary biologist.
 * The advocacy of biological evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life; the word is particularly used by creationists.

History


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 London 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." 

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 1959 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. 

Though Darwin had excluded the word evolution from the first five editions of Origin of Species, he imported both the term evolution and evolutionist into his Sixth Edition in 1872; for example, "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." 

Samplings of usages of the terms evolution, evolutionist, and evolutionism in Darwin's time
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." 

The word evolution was popularised during the 19th century by Herbert Spencer to mean cultural evolution; i.e. the improvement of cultures (see History of the theory of cultural evolution) &mdash; it was only later that it acquired its biological meaning. Advocacy of such theory was called evolutionism.

At the same time, the word evolutionist was used to describe one who studies evolution; most prefer to use the term evolutionary biologist instead because of how the word evolutionism is used by creationists (see below).

Early History of Evolutionism
Summary of the First Chapter of Robert Carneiro's Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History

Use in the evolution/creation controversy
The word is widely used by creationists and others who are opposed to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life), to mean the proposition of such theory. They consider it to be a matter of religious faith in such explanations (see -ism).

The scientific community however rarely uses the word. In America, the National Center for Science Education, an organisation which opposes creationism, does not use the term, but does use related term "anti-evolutionism", meaning the opposition to the evolutionary theory.

In addition, Young Earth creationists may use the term evolutionism to include the paradigms of other sciences such as geology and astronomy which have been used to estimate the age of the Earth and age of the Universe respectively.

Opponents of evolutionary theory may also equate the word with other belief systems that they are opposed to such as atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism and rationalism, and things they identify with that such as materialism. They may further try to equate with extremist political ideologies such as fascism because of its harsh economics and/or communism/Marxism because of the communist association with atheism. Eugenics, generally discredited is also mentioned &mdash; the bastardization "evil-utionism" is a useful of their point of view

In 1994, John Peloza an American High school teacher sued his school board claiming that he was being forced to teach the "religion" of "evolutionism". The United States Court of Appeal, Ninth Circuit found against Peloza. The court found that Peloza's arguments were inconsistent. On that appeal, the decision to make Peloza pay the costs of the High School Board was reversed because it was an important test case balancing free speech against the Establishment Clause.

Philosopher of science Michael Ruse has more recently come to the conclusion that evolution is ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions.

Applied evolution
In computer science, a genetic algorithm is an algorithm used to find approximate solutions to difficult-to-solve problems through application of the principles of evolutionary biology to computer science. Genetic algorithms use biologically-derived techniques such as inheritance, mutation, natural selection, and recombination. Genetic algorithms are a particular class of evolutionary algorithms.

The pioneering founder of much of today&rsquo;s work in genetic algorithms was John Holland. Genetic algorithms has moved on from a purely theoretical subject (though based on computer modelling) to provide methods which can be used to actually solve some difficult problems today.

Creationism/evolution controversy

 * Findings of the Peloza v Capistrano Unified School Disctrict case on the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
 * National Center for Science Education
 * Talk.Origins Archive


 * Young Earth creationist organisation Answers in Genesis have an article entitled "Evolution As Religion" by David Ungred, as well as several other FAQs and articles.
 * Intelligent design proponents the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture