Review: Griet Vandermassen: Who's Afraid of Charles Darwin? Debating Feminism And Evolutionary Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, 256pp. £18.99, $32.95 ISBN 0—7425—4351—X (pbk); £69.00, $91.00, ISBN 0—7425—4350—1 (hbk)

2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 289-293
Author(s):  
Kristy Lascelles
Author(s):  
James Aaron Green

Abstract In Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man (1863), Charles Lyell appraised the distinct contribution made by his protégé, Charles Darwin (On the Origin of Species (1859)), to evolutionary theory: ‘Progression … is not a necessary accompaniment of variation and natural selection [… Darwin’s theory accounts] equally well for what is called degradation, or a retrogressive movement towards a simple structure’. In Rhoda Broughton’s first novel, Not Wisely, but Too Well (1867), written contemporaneously with Lyell’s book, the Crystal Palace at Sydenham prompts precisely this sort of Darwinian ambivalence to progress; but whether British civilization ‘advance[s] or retreat[s]’, her narrator adds that this prophesized state ‘will not be in our days’ – its realization exceeds the single lifespan. This article argues that Not Wisely, but Too Well is attentive to the irreconcilability of Darwinism to the Victorian ‘idea of progress’: Broughton’s novel, distinctly from its peers, raises the retrogressive and nihilistic potentials of Darwin’s theory and purposes them to reflect on the status of the individual in mid-century Britain.


Author(s):  
Marc W. Cadotte ◽  
T. Jonathan Davies

This chapter reviews the history of the use of phylogenetics in ecology, beginning with a discussion of early attempts to classify the diversity of life and the development of evolutionary theory. In particular, it examines how early taxonomists, starting with Carl Linnaeus, have grouped species by similarity in their traits and how early ecologists and biologists such as Charles Darwin recognized the importance of relatedness in influencing ecological interactions and species distributions. The chapter proceeds by focusing on the introduction of the neutral theory of biodiversity into mainstream ecology and the development of the niche-based model of community assembly. It also considers how some ecologists questioned the relevance of phylogenetic corrections for ecology and concludes by analyzing the emergence of ecological phylogenetics or ecophylogenetics.


Author(s):  
Bill Jenkins

The penultimate chapter looks at the longer-term impact of the efflorescence of evolutionary speculation in early-nineteenth-century Edinburgh on later generations of natural historians. First it examines the evangelical reaction against progressive models of the history of life and its role in the eclipse of the ‘Edinburgh Lamarckians.’ Next it examines to the evolutionary theory proposed by Robert Chambers in his anonymously published Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1844) to assess its possible debt to the Edinburgh transformists of the 1820s and 1830s. Finally it turns to the important question of the possible influence of the ‘Edinburgh Lamarckians’ on Charles Darwin during his time as a medical student in Edinburgh in the years 1825 to 1827, during which period he rubbed shoulders with many of the key proponents of evolutionary ideas in the city.


2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Bateson

Charles Darwin has had an extraordinary impact on many aspects of human affairs apart from revolutionizing biology. On the 200th anniversary of his birth, the Cambridge Darwin Festival in July 2009 celebrated these contributions to the humanities, philosophy and religion and the approach to medicine, economics and the social sciences. He is a man to revere. It is no discredit to him that the science of evolutionary biology should continue to evolve. In this article I shall consider some of the ways in which this has happened since his day.


Ever since Charles Darwin, scholars have noted that cultural entities such as languages, laws, firms, and theories seem to ‘evolve’ through sequences of variation, selection and replication, in many ways just like living organisms. This book considers whether this comparison is ‘just a metaphor’, or whether modern evolutionary theory can help us to understand the dynamics of different cultural domains. The ‘evolutionary paradigm of rationality’ has a significant role to play throughout the human sciences, but raises complex issues in every cultural context where it is applied. By fostering discussion between scholars from a wide range of research traditions, this book aims to influence the evolution of all of them.


1997 ◽  
Vol 81 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1372-1374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry Knapp ◽  
Charles Rasmussen ◽  
Mary Jo Wagner

204 introductory and 154 advanced students in psychology were asked about their knowledge of Charles Darwin and endorsement of belief statements about the status of evolutionary theory. Advanced students had higher scores than introductory students on three of six multiple-choice knowledge items and differed from them on all six statements of belief as assessed by χ2 Advanced students appear to know more about evolutionary theory but may be less inclined to endorse its relevancy to psychology.


1986 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-107
Author(s):  
A. Muhammad Ma’ruf

I. THE BIOLOGY-CULTURE CONNECTION IN THE HISTORYOF ANTHROPOLOGICAL THOUGHTThe story of modem anthropology is a story of the Euro-American attemptto discover the other than Euro-American human being. Within thatstory is the story of the intellectual self-discovery of the Euro-American;within that is the story of the discovery of racism; within that is the storyof political and ideological pressures on the processes of such discoveries;within that the amazing and wonderful story of the scientific discovery ofthe worldly nature of the human being - conceptualized generally: acrossall space and time, all colors and languages; and within that story is a storyof the social and natural sciences: of their methods, results, potentialities,and pitfalls.If there is a central theme that runs through all these stories within thestory, it is the story of the impact of Darwinian and post-Darwinian biologyon the social and human sciences. Modem anthropology is not much morethan an evolutionist form of humanism. Evolutionism is to be found in mosttypes of contemporary anthropological studies, as a central position or animplicit assumption. It is clearly axiomatic to thought, analysis, and interpretationin the discipline. As such it is a fundamental issue in the considerationof modem anthropology for inclusion in, and recasting for, Islamic educationalpurposes. The aim of this presentation is to consider briefly how theimpact of Darwin, and of biology after Darwin, on recent anthropologicalthought may be measured as a step toward developing an Islamic methodologyfor anthropological research and teaching.Since its publication in 1859 by Charles Darwin (and Alfred Russell),evolutionary theory has been refined and developed by virturally all life sciencedisciplines and a few other disciplines such as anthropology. Anthropdogyis rooted partly in the life sciences and partly in the social sciences. Humanevolutionary theory developed by anthropologists has gained wide acceptancein all sectors of the Western scientific establishment. Adherence to, and propagationof, an evolutionist world-view has become a symbol of the liberalistmission of Western science in the face of periodic opposition to it comingfrom conservative, evangelist, Christian fundamentalists, and politicians whorepresent them. A few of the anti-evolutionists are also scientists (Williams,1983). They have given leadership to the most recent form of antievolutionism,called scientific creationism. Within the scientific and educationalcommunity their view is at present a minority view; the dominant viewbeing the pro-evolutionary one. Among the Judeo-Christian population atlarge, in the United States, surveys indicate that about half of the people givecredence to the evolutionary view. The others either do not or do not care.An effect of post-Darwinian natural science on social science was to bringhuman evolution into focus as incorporating psychological, social, and culturalaspects in addition to the biological (see e.g. in Eiseley, 1958; Freeman, 1974;Harris, 1968; Opler, 1964; Reed, 1961; Stocking, 1968). The historical relationshipof bio-evolutionary theory to the social sciences in general andspecifically to anthropology, is complex. Nowadays it is one of the dependenceof the latter on the former. It has been argued, however, that in its formativeyears, Darwinian evolutionary theory was in fact an application of socialscience concepts to biology. Darwin himself acknowledged that the Malthusianstatement of the principle that human population, when unchecked, increasesin geometrical ratio while subsistence increases only in arithmeticalratio, influenced his idea of natural selection. The subsequent acceptance ofMendelian genetics, on which the modem form of evolutionism rests, quicklytransformed even the fundamental social science principles of the study ofhuman races and variation. The continuing success of the biological sciences ...


2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARK BLYTH ◽  
GEOFFREY M. HODGSON ◽  
ORION LEWIS ◽  
SVEN STEINMO

Abstract:How can evolutionary ideas be applied to the study of social and political institutions? Charles Darwin identified the mechanisms of variation, selection and retention. He emphasized that evolutionary change depends on the uniqueness of every individual and its interactions within a population and with its environment. While introducing the contributions to this special issue, we examine some of the ontological positions underlying evolutionary theory, showing why they are appropriate for studying issues in economics, political science and sociology. We consider how these ideas might help us understand both institutional change and the formation of individual preferences.


Philosophy ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-483
Author(s):  
Robin Attfield

AbstractAlvin Plantinga, echoing a worry of Charles Darwin which he calls ‘Darwin's doubt’, argues that given Darwinian evolutionary theory our beliefs are unreliable, since they are determined to be what they are by evolutionary pressures and could have had no other content. This papers surveys in turn deterministic and non-deterministic interpretations of Darwinism, and concludes that Plantinga's argument poses a problem for the former alone and not for the latter. Some parallel problems arise for the Cognitive Science of Religion, and in particular for the hypothesis that many of our beliefs, including religious beliefs, are due to a Hypersensitive Agency-Detection Device, at least if this hypothesis is held in a deterministic form. In a non-deterministic form, however, its operation need not cast doubt on the rationality or reliability of the relevant beliefs.


1986 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-360
Author(s):  
Barrie Britton

Ever since Charles Darwin first published his revolutionary book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, there has been considerable disagreement among Christians concerning both the truth of evolutionary theory and its possible reconciliation with the Bible. Some Christians have taken the so-called ‘fundamentalist creationist’ position believing in a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis. Others have adopted so-called ‘theistic evolutionist’ views accepting to various different degrees Darwinian ideas about origins. One point however on which most Christians (and indeed non-Christians) are agreed, is that an evolutionary process based on blind chance must necessarily conflict with all possible theistic world views and stands irreconcilable with the biblical text. It is this assertion which in this essay I hope to refute, as based on misunderstanding of the meaning of blind chance, of the mechanism of evolution and of the involvement of God in the universe.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document