The nomenclature wars – Darwinism

Yesterday was Darwin Day, which I shamefully failed to celebrate, even though I’m a big evolution buff. Belatedly, I offer my two cents, and truly the contribution is minor. Still, too many words are committed to Google cache over what I think are matters of nomenclature, not substance.

Today’s example is an essay in the The New York Times, calling to “kill the cult of Darwinism” (hat tip to the Grey Thumb). Apparently, associating the modern theory of evolution with the man who gave birth to it creates a false impression of Darwin as the ultimate and last prophet in biology and that nothing substantial came after him. Further, “Darwinism” implies that other “isms” exist, and gives credence to them by automatically assuming the role of their antagonist.

The Wikipedia is very insightful about the contested term, saying that it has different meanings for different people. This alone does not keep many scientists from using and defending it, even at the cost of being misunderstood. A pity, but not a good enough reason to give Darwin the boot.

Perhaps the term the author is looking for is “the modern synthesis“, a rather uncatchy title which dares not betray its subject matter (unless “evolutionary” is injected into it, making it even more cumbersome). It is also what most scientists mean when referring to Darwinism. The reason is an historical one – even though the modern synthesis has progressed beyond Darwin, its core – now expressed as a mathematical law – is faithful to Darwin’s logic. Evolutionary theory will forever be associated with Darwin, because it is built on natural selection, the one insight Darwin will forever be right about.

Whatever the historical roots of “Darwinism”, Darwin is not the only one to become a “cult figure”. In mathematics, entire fields of study are called after people – like Euclidean geometry. But geometry doesn’t stir human prejudice as much as the origin of life, I suppose, so Euclid stays but Darwin “must go”.

Secondly, creationists more often use the pejorative term “evolutionist” than “Darwinist”. After all, as the author rightly notes, evolution is bigger and older than Darwin. Evolution is the original sin and enemy of creationists and IDers, not Darwinism, although the latter is perhaps more obscene.

Thus, the proposed exorcism is a red herring – evolution is a bitter pill to swallow for many, be it associated with Darwin or not. Neither did scientists create a cult of Darwin. There are more famous scientists whose names are associated with genius and wisdom, such as Einstein (although it’s true there’s no “Einsteinism”, Einstein is often invoked as a final authority, even on subjects other than physics). True, to the unititiated it may seem as if evolution hinges on Darwin. The answer is to initiate them, not dabble in nomenclature.