Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Collins and Giberson: “ most scientists do not use the label ‘Darwinism’ any longer” – except if you look at the evidence

arroba Email

In The Language of Science and Faith Karl Giberson and Francis Collins admonish us,

Most working biologists today actually have little interest in Darwin himself, and few have read The Origin of Species. In fact, most scientists do not use the label “Darwinism” any longer. The modern theory of evolution has contributions from many scientists over the last 150 years and has become the core of biology. (P. 21)

Okay, but how about this from the Discovery Institute: “We’d love to take credit for Darwinism, but can’t.”:

In the November 28, 2005 issue of Newsweek, the renowned Harvard sociobiologist E.O. Wilson claims that the term “Darwinism” is a “rhetorical device” merely invented by opponents of, well, Darwinism. The article quotes Wilson as follows:”‘In part, the fascination with the man is being driven by his enemies, who say they’re fighting ‘Darwinism,’ rather than evolution or natural selection. ‘It’s a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like ‘Maoism’,’ says Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson, editor of one of the two Darwin anthologies just published. … ‘Scientists,’ Wilson adds, ‘don’t call it Darwinism.'” (“Charles Darwin: Evolution of a Scientist,” by Jerry Adler, Newsweek November 28, 2005, pg. 53)

Rube shouts from pit: Hey, hasn’t Wilson renounced his key Darwin theory? (Rube soon removed by Christian Darwinist thought police.)

Sure, Rube is right, but it’s an unfact. Anyway:

Contrary to Wilson’s assertion, the journal Science has used the term in a pro-Darwin manner, referring favorably to “Darwinism” in the context of this very debate over the biology curriculum:”Two other sites previously reviewed in NetWatch brim with helpful information. In a section on obstacles to teaching Darwinism, this primer from the University of California, Berkeley, profiles different strains of anti-evolutionism.”

(“Standing Up for Darwin,” Science, 308:1847, 6/24/2005, emphasis added)

Even prominent Darwinist scientists use the term in their popular writings. Richard Dawkins writes that “There are people in this world who desperately want to not have to believe in Darwinism.” (The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, 1996 ed, pg. 250) The term “Darwinism” has over 20 entries in the index to Stephen Jay Gould’s magnum opus, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory.

If Wilson is correct that “Scientists don’t call it Darwinism,” then apparently all the authors who use the term “Darwinism” in Science, Nature, books, and many journals are not scientists. The alternative explanations are that Professor Wilson is wrong, or is bluffing. I’ll go with either alternative.

Go with either alternative? So would UD news staff. But how do we explain Collins and Giberson (2011) continuing to insist on something that cannot be supported by evidence?

Over at ENV Casey has an article up on the evolution of feathers from scales. Giberson and Collins Make Outdated Argument That Feathers Evolved From Scales Now here's what I like about this story. We know birds have feathers. We assume they evolved from some other morphological structure. So now we must propose the imaginary [the path from a to b] in order to explain the actual. And we can't say that feathers themselves appeared as an adaptation. There had to be many steps. So now I need to know, how does Darwin's theory of evolution explain the appearance of design? I mean, scales might appear designed, and feathers might appear designed, but imaginary non-scale-non-feathers don't look designed at all. They look, well, imaginary. So we see that Darwin's theory does not at all offer an explanation for the appearance of design. Mung
Darwinism sounds so much better than "Smorgasbordianism," which is what they really mean by "the modern theory for evolution." Mung
Scientists do not use the term? mmm so I guess this means that Ernst Mayr wasn't a scientist then?(or maybe an undercover creationist) Since he writes: "First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer .... Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so admired by natural theologians could be explained by natural selection." Polanyi
The modern theory of evolution has contributions from many scientists over the last 150 years and has become the core of biology. So, the modern theory of evolution, as the core of biology, was used as the primary tool in the discovery of the information-based nature of living systems? Please explain. GilDodgen
Maybe we are neo-Darwinists today, but let us spell neo with a very small n! Our neo-Darwinism is very much in the spirit of Darwin himself. ~ Richard Dawkins bevets

Leave a Reply