Explore Evolution The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism


John Timmer objects to Explore Evolution’s subtitle, “The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism,” claiming that “[d]uring the roughly 20 years I was directly involved in biology research, I’d never come across the term ‘Darwinism.'” EE’s subtitle actually uses the word “neo-Darwinism,” not “Darwinism,” but regardless, Timmer’s complaint reveals more about his own ignorance than it does about any inaccuracy on the part of EE. Terms like “Darwinism” and “neo-Darwinism” (or similar cognates like “Darwinian,” “neo-Darwinian,” or “Darwinist”) regularly appear in both the technical scientific literature and textbooks about evolution, and they are repeatedly employed by contemporary scientists and philosophers of science.

In a book published just last year, for example, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne repeatedly labeled the modern theory of evolution as “neo-Darwinism”:

The modern theory of evolution, called neo-Darwinism in light of 150 years of post-Darwin research, has four parts… [p. 6]

Neo-Darwinism, like the theory of chemical bonds, has graduated from theory to fact. [p. 6]

Neo-Darwinism is thus a robust scientific theory, explaining a vast body of evidence, generating predictions that have been amply confirmed, and vulnerable to falsification, but showing itself more than capable of withstanding all scrutiny so far. [p.12]

(Jerry Coyne, “Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name,” in John Brockman, ed., Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement (New York: Random House, 2007), pp. 3-23.)

Coyne is far from an isolated example. The technical scientific literature is rife with terms such as “Darwinism” and “neo-Darwinism.” Perhaps Timmer is unfamiliar with this literature, but even a brief search of leading scientific journals would have revealed thousands of references to “Darwinism,” “neo-Darwinism,” and their cognates. Since 1980, there have been more than a thousand references to “Darwinism” and cognate terms in the journal Science alone. Another 1,549 references have appeared in the journal Nature.

The usage of these terms is also commonplace in textbooks on evolution. Douglas Futuyma’s 2005 textbook Evolution defines “neo-Darwinism” as “[t]he modern belief that natural selection, acting on randomly generated genetic variation, is a major, but not the sole, cause of evolution.” (Futuyma, 2005, p. 550) Donald Prothero’s recent text, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters,similarly references “Neo-Darwinism,” observing that it “extrapolates all larger evolutionary changes (macroevolution) as just microevolution writ large.” (Prothero, 2007, p. 94) Strickberger’s textbook Evolution equates “neo-Darwinism” with the “modern synthesis,” defining it as “a change in the frequencies of genes introduced by mutation, with natural selection considered as the most important, although not the only, cause for such changes.” (Strickberger, 2000 p. 649)

If terms like “Darwinism” or “neo-Darwinism” are unsavory to Timmer, then his beef is with his fellow evolutionists, not the writers of EE.

References Cited

Coyne, Jerry. Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name. In John Brockman, ed., Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement. New York: Random House, 2007.

Futuyma, Douglas J. Evolution. Sinaeur, 2005.

Prothero, Donald R. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. Columbia University Press, 2007.

Monroe, W. Strickberger, Evolution. Jones & Bartlett, 3d ed., 2000.

Timmer, John. A biologist reviews an evolution textbook from the ID camp. September 24, 2008.

The NCSE’s Biogeographic Conundrums: A Defense of Explore Evolution‘s Treatment of Biogeography

By Casey Luskin, M.S. (Earth Sciences), J.D. Introduction In its response to the chapter on biogeography in the supplementary textbook Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (EE), the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) asserts that EE “mangles the tiny fraction of biogeography covered.”* If anything is mangled, it is the NCSE’s response, which hops in a scattered fashion from issue to issue, repeatedly misrepresents the arguments of EE, and relies on double standards in order to nitpick over trivial matters. Additionally, the NCSE cherry picks data to make it appear that biogeography consistently supports universal common descent. The NCSE has adopted the shotgun approach to attacking EE, using any argument, however weak, that comes to hand. What Read More ›

The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism