Am I a Darwinian?

I spent Saturday, February 9, traveling to/from or in Tallahassee. I was there to attend the annual meeting of Florida Citizens for Science, and also to take in some Darwin Day speakers at the FSU Medical School. I was able to work in Dr. Harry Kroto and Dr. Eugenie Scott (National Center for Science Education), and also part of the final panel that include Dr. Michael Ruse amongst others.

There is a problem with these meetings in that we gather together people who already agree that the theory of evolution is sound science and we are encouraged by those supporting it and alarmed by the number of folks in this country who oppose it. Often little is accomplished in convincing anyone who wasn’t convinced already. But it’s really a very small problem. There is a place for educating and encouraging the choir, and those of us who were there learned some things about communicating evolution. I would say that the very best way to build support for the theory of evolution, and thus also sound science generally, is to provide better science education.

Why do I think supporting the theory of evolution in particular encourages sound science? In order to truly do science one must be willing to follow the evidence where it leads. Evolution is the main point on which large numbers don’t want to do that. As long as we say we can ignore the facts discovered by science, we are inevitably weakened.

There was one discussion that interested me especially because of my linguistic background. Dr. Scott made the comment that we should not accept the title “Darwinist” because that title is applied to us by creationists as an epithet. Physicists are not Kelvinists, for example. (Dr. Scott provided a considerable list.) I can see her point on this, because the term “Darwinist” has been poisoned so much by the debate. Dr. Michael Ruse objected on this one point and suggested rather than he didn’t mind being called a “Darwinian.”

I’m kind of torn on the issue. I don’t like being called an “evolutionist.” It’s not my religion or my political “ism.” It’s just a well-established scientific theory that I accept. It shouldn’t be regarded with surprise that I accept it; the reverse should be true. Why would one not accept a theory with such solid support? But at the same time I dislike the misuse of Charles Darwin’s name. Evolution today is not limited to what he discovered, but at the same time he was both a man of his age, and thus not perfect, while at the same time he was a wonderful example of a scientist, and a scientific thinker. He was able to step beyond the paradigms of his age and provide a whole new foundation for understanding the whole science of biology. In that sense, I would proud–but unqualified–to be called a Darwinian.

The bottom line, I suspect, is that I can do very little about what people choose to call me or anyone else. I will likely be a “theistic evolutionist” for the indefinite future, even though I object to the “ist” on evolutionist and the “theistic” part of the title. I both believe in God and I accept the theory of evolution. My theism does not modify the data of the theory of evolution. Yet the title has become accepted and does identify a somewhat coherent group of people.

Perhaps we should take on the name “Darwinian” and try to rescue the reputation of the fine scientist form which it is derived. The fact that this must be done is a sorry comment on our culture.