Search

While studies have examined Charles Darwin's wide social and political impact, they have not adequately centred the combined influence of colonial systems of human differentiation and religion within them. To address this, I draw from Sylvia Wynter's critique concerning how religious and colonial discourses contribute to the shifting development of Man within the Western tradition. Specifically, I explore how Darwin focused his evolutionary gaze towards one of the unique foundations of what it meant to be human in his time: religion. Tracing the entangled religious and colonial filiations of Darwin's thought, I show that he established an evolutionary link between human and non-human animals by proposing both Indigenous peoples and dogs held superstitious beliefs. To illustrate this, I show that Darwin transposed Victorian anthropological conceptions of religion - as a quantifiable object of knowledge corresponding to the intellect and associated with phrenology, dream theory and the apparitional soul - into a bio-religious conception of evolution. Furthermore, I argue that Darwin's bio-evolutionism assumes Christianity is most closely associated with abstract reason. Finally, analyzing the role of race in Darwin's thought, I suggest that theology is not what was before modern scientific bio-evolutionary conceptions of race, but at its very core. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ludwig Boltzmann's move in his seminal paper of 1877, introducing a statistical understanding of entropy, was a watershed moment in the history of physics. The work not only introduced quantization and provided a new understanding of entropy, it challenged the understanding of what a law of nature could be. Traditionally, nomological necessity, that is, specifying the way in which a system must develop, was considered an essential element of proposed physical laws. Yet, here was a new understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that no longer possessed this property. While it was a new direction in physics, in other important scientific discourses of that time—specifically Huttonian geology and Darwinian evolution, similar approaches were taken in which a system's development followed principles, but did so in a way that both provided a direction of time and allowed for non-deterministic, though rule-based, time evolution. Boltzmann referred to both of these theories, especially the work of Darwin, frequently. The possibility that Darwin influenced Boltzmann's thought in physics can be seen as being supported by Boltzmann's later writings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Species that died without leaving descendants Darwin called 'utterly extinct'. They far outnumber the ancestors of all living things, so they resemble the dark matter of modern cosmology, which far outweighs visible matter. He realized in 1837 that their absence is what creates the groups in a natural classification. In his Notebook B he combined the idea that species multiply with the idea that ancestors' relatives must mostly be extinct. The fossil Megatherium was utterly extinct. The iconic branching 'I think' diagram shows extinction causing the origin of genera by eliminating intermediate species. Darwin's concept of taxonomic ranks, starting with the genus, was informed by his interaction with taxonomists. Based on his familiarity with demography, Darwin reasoned that the survival of transitional forms was unlikely, which helped him decide to focus at the species level. When drafting his theory in the 1840s, he left out these speculative ideas, but they emerged again in the 1850s when he realized his theory needed a cause for branches to diverge. His ecological answer worked at the species level, but his Principle of Divergence was unconvincing at higher taxonomic levels. In the Origin, Darwin repeatedly insisted on the importance of utter extinction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ludwig Boltzmann’s move in his seminal paper of 1877, introducing a statistical understanding of entropy, was a watershed moment in the history of physics. The work not only introduced quantization and provided a new understanding of entropy, it challenged the understanding of what a law of nature could be. Traditionally, nomological necessity, that is, specifying the way in which a system must develop, was considered an essential element of proposed physical laws. Yet, here was a new understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that no longer possessed this property. While it was a new direction in physics, in other important scientific discourses of that time—specifically Huttonian geology and Darwinian evolution, similar approaches were taken in which a system’s development followed principles, but did so in a way that both provided a direction of time and allowed for non-deterministic, though rule-based, time evolution. Boltzmann referred to both of these theories, especially the work of Darwin, frequently. The possibility that Darwin influenced Boltzmann’s thought in physics can be seen as being supported by Boltzmann’s later writings.

This article engages Kojonen's discussion of scientific explanation. Kojonen claims the best way to conceptualize the relationship between evolutionary explanations and explanation by design is through the proximate‐ultimate distinction and the levels metaphor. However, these are not robust explanatory models but examples of how one might differentiate ambiguous explananda contained in why‐questions. Disambiguating explananda is a helpful tool for determining when a situation calls for further explanation; however, on this picture, that some further explanation is needed does not, as proponents of design arguments assume, specify design. The question of whether design is a good explanation at all hinges on what precisely we want explained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Edward Dinker Cope (1840-1897) was one of the most influential naturalists of the nineteenth century, who led the development of American paleontology and the popularization of Lamarck’s theory of evolution. One of the overlooked threads in his biography is his philosophical views. According to Cope, theology should be reformed with the introduction of new philosophical assumptions in line with the emerging theory of evolution. Cope proposed the formulation of a new “theology” based on his own theory of evolution. This article examines Cope’s philosophical views and shows how he reinterpreted the mechanism of natural selection by incorporating it into his own teleological account of evolution. According to Cope free will enables man to control evolution, but there is no guarantee that man will survive. According to Cope, this is a theological thesis as he considers maladaptation as equivalent to sin, which in turn was eliminated by natural selection. As a result, belief in God becomes the only way to guarantee survival. However, this conclusion also led Cope to rationalize racism as he saw in the exploitation of other races the effects of their degeneration. Cope’s views reflect problems in contemporary sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

Evolutionary systems theorist David Loye wrote many pioneering and engaging books throughout his lifetime; one of the best-known is Darwin’s Lost Theory: Bridge to a Better World (2007), a book that explores and overturns the longstanding notions of distinct Darwinism based upon a ‘survival of the fittest’ human mentality. Instead, Loye discovered and sought to bring to light Darwin’s long-ignored insights and a complete theory into the evolution of human morality as guided by moral action and love. In this article, colleagues of David Loye comment on this important book.

The contemporary creation–evolution debate has become so polarized (over the issue of either Genesis or evolutionary science) as to obscure the more nuanced questions that have arisen in the historical and theological reception of Darwinism. Edinburgh's New College has been the academic home to some prominent scientists and theologians who have grappled with these questions since the early days of evolutionary science in the first half of the nineteenth century. Most obviously, this activity was focused on the decision to create a Chair in Natural Science in 1845, which would be occupied by a recognized scientist. The Chair became "extinct" in the 1930s, but in between times, its holders made important theological assessments of evolution along the way. This article outlines the contributions made by the individuals who occupied this Chair, as well as more recent figures in the evolution of science and theology at New College. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The decade from 1844 to 1854 in which Charles Darwin first published two books and then studied barnacles for the final eight years has long been a puzzling digression from the development of his theory of evolution. This essay proposes that it was a conjunction of two quite different activities: a three-year pause initiated to assess and hopefully finalize the editorial completion of his 1844 Essay for publication, followed by a step-change decision to redirect his primary research activity in late 1847. A disenchantment hypothesis is proposed; it presents the step-change decision as a consequence of weighing up the accumulated unencouraging prospects for species-theory development in competition with the emergence of promising projections associated with a broad study of marine invertebrates. Recognition of the triumph, as Darwin initially saw it, of his Essay, followed by years of hostile inputs, opens this new route to understanding this decade. Within it Joseph Hooker emerges as a significant causal force. Many of the customary 'postponement' explanations of this digression can be integrated with this pause-and-step-change explanation, whereas explanation of the interval as a gap due to a pre-planned activity cannot, and is revealed to be seriously faulty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditionally, atheists have refuted the existence of God using philosophical arguments mainly. At present, new atheists deny the existence of God using scientific, moral and historical arguments. This addition in argumentation has given a slight rise to atheism in different parts of world as well as in Muslim countries. Muslim scholars have responded the atheistic thoughts but the response is still unknown in academic community. The study compares new atheist thinkers to Muslim scholars and analyzes the differences, especially with respect to evolution theory by Charles Darwin. With the aid of this theory, atheist scientists and intellectuals claim that science is enough for the explanation about the creation of our universe. According to them, modern man is not dependent anymore on any divine scripture. Darwinian scientists claim that universe has come into existence accidently without the interference of any divine power. Atheist writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Deniel C. Dennett argue that atheism has got scientific basis with the evolutionary theory. Muslim scholars have differences in their views, some reject it completely and some partially accept it as working scientific model. However, they unanimously refute the atheistic part of theory that shows the non-existence of God and purposeless universe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fritz Müller is known for explaining the evolutionary consequences of what is now called Müllerian mimicry, but his scientific contributions encompass a wide range of organisms and both ecological and evolutionary processes. His originality is seen in aspects as different as the discovery of the mutualistic nature of ant–fungus symbiosis, pioneering research in evolutionary developmental biology and the first mathematical treatment in a Darwinian framework. From his intimate knowledge of the natural history of Brazil and original observations of morphology and development, Müller provided evidence supporting natural selection. From the 20th century onwards, however, his scientific legacy has been re-examined only for single topics. To celebrate the bicentenary of his birth in 2022, this article briefly discusses his importance for current ecological and evolutionary knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the fact that Charles Darwin spent several months in Australia in the final year of his Beagle voyage that circumnavigated the globe, most studies that deal with Darwin's life or his discovery of evolution spend little time discussing his Australian period, if it is mentioned at all. His time there is largely deemed to have produced little of significance in comparison to his visits to other places such as the Galápagos Islands, which has long been mythologized as providing the key sources of observable data that ultimately led Darwin to develop his evolutionary speculations. In recent years, however, Darwin's period in Australia has received more attention, most notably a series of studies detailing the observations and connections Darwin made while in New South Wales, Tasmania, and King George Sound. While much of this literature has provided an important corrective to previous Darwin scholarship that had largely ignored Darwin's period in Australia, it has also worked to perpetuate a romantic and heroic view of scientific discovery by suggesting that Darwin's key "evolutionary revelation" was made not in the Galápagos Islands but in the Blue Mountains, a claim that has been recently made in print and online. This paper therefore examines the historical literature on Darwin Down Under, focussing in particular on this recent romantic turn that seeks to situate Australia as the key site of inspiration for Darwin's theory of evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It's tempting to think of evolution as just happening, just like sunrises and sunsets day after day. Naturally and obviously. But if in these times it is rare that there is someone who thinks of a supernatural being to explain the appearance of each new morning, there are many people who maintain that all species were created by God and will remain so, without any change, until the end of time. In fact, practically all the enlightened people believed it, following the model of the narrative of the Bible until almost two centuries ago, in 1859, the British Charles Darwin opened a new path towards what the biological sciences are today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Edward Dinker Cope (1840-1897) was one of the most influential naturalists of the nineteenth century, who led the development of American paleontology and the popularization of Lamarck's theory of evolution. One of the overlooked threads in his biography is his philosophical views. According to Cope, theology should be reformed with the introduction of new philosophical assumptions in line with the emerging theory of evolution. Cope proposed the formulation of a new "theology" based on his own theory of evolution. This article examines Cope's philosophical views and shows how he reinterpreted the mechanism of natural selection by incorporating it into his own teleological account of evolution. According to Cope free will enables man to control evolution, but there is no guarantee that man will survive. According to Cope, this is a theological thesis as he considers maladaptation as equivalent to sin, which in turn was eliminated by natural selection. As a result, belief in God becomes the only way to guarantee survival. However, this conclusion also led Cope to rationalize racism as he saw in the exploitation of other races the effects of their degeneration. Cope's views reflect problems in contemporary sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author makes an attempt to show why (1) Darwin’s teaching in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex cannot be “scientific” in a modern, classical, or any, sense and that, consequently, in them, (2) Darwin did not scientifically prove the reality of evolution of species. He claims that, while the question of the origin of genera and species is principally and primarily a metaphysical problem, Darwin’s ignorance of the nature of philosophy and metaphysics and the complexity of the problem of the nature of genera and species caused him mistakenly to frame this metaphysical problem as one of physics, more precisely as one of biology, which Darwin reduced to a natural history of living, physical beings.

Kurt Vonnegut's Galápagos is his most studied novel after Slaughterhouse-Five. A considerable number of the studies produced on the novel investigate it using a posthumanist theoretical framework, for its unprecedented narrative spans a million years, employs a ghost for its omniscient narrator, and depicts human extinction and the evolution of a post-Homo sapiens species. This article questions scholarly claims that Galápagos is a truly posthumanist text. It begins with an account of the anthropocentric and humanist thought originating in the Western tradition and then touches upon the many strands of posthumanism that strive towards decentring the human and promoting inter-species equality and justice. Next, it dissects in detail the flaws of Vonnegut's posthumanism and his incorrigible humanist bent in Galápagos, and goes on to identify the novel's plot as echoing the archetypal trope of the creation myth—a humanist construct. The article thereby concludes that Galápagos, despite its depiction of the post-human in the form of an evolved post-Homo sapiens species, suffers from Vonnegut's ever unstable humanist and posthumanist impulses and thus manages to remain a humanist–posthumanist concoction at best. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Bulletin de la Societe Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles is the property of Societe Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This essay outlines the significance of understanding the relationship between Islam and science, particularly from the twentieth century onward. It mainly revolves around the viability of Darwin's evolutionary thought in the Muslim world, which is confronted by various groups of Muslim commentators and scholars. This study goes through various original sources, official documents, former unpublished theses, and Qur'ānic commentaries in Islamic languages from north Africa to the Malay‐Indonesian world to display the uninterrupted challenge of Muslims with European science in general and European evolutionary thought in particular; an act which is not going to stop now, nor tomorrow. Finally, this essay aims to inform readers how a philosophical reading of Islam and science would be crucial before approving or rejecting any form of connection between the two, particularly in future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The Galápagos archipelago is known worldwide for its contributions to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, and the islands continue to support studies in evolutionary biology. Yet despite the strong association of Galápagos with evolutionary biology, it is unknown if tourists—approaching 200,000 individuals annually—come to Galápagos with a specific interest in learning about evolution. Prior work has established that Galápagos National Park guides are proud of the association between the islands and evolution, yet on average do not do well on a test of basic evolutionary concepts. The work described herein is an attempt to clarify, via in-person surveys on tourists during the summer of 2016, whether tourists are motivated to visit Galápagos by an interest in evolution. Results Of the 109 tourists who answered the question “How interested were you in this trip to Galápagos?” all but one indicated that they were interested or extremely interested in their trip. Only two mentioned a specific interest in learning about evolution or the relationship between the islands and the history of evolutionary thought. For most people, seeing animals—in general or specifically identified animals such as the giant tortoises—was the primary motivation for coming to Galápagos. Unusual animals, snorkeling, and visiting a remote location all averaged above 4.0 on a 5.0-point scale, indicating that these aspects of the archipelago are very-to-extremely appealing to tourists. When average responses for 22 items were ranked from most to least appealing, evolution-related items came in 14th, 17th, 18th, and 20th. However, consequences of evolutionary processes, such as unusual animals and biodiversity, rank higher than either of the four evolution-specific items. Conclusions Given tourists’ primary interest in the islands’ endemic wildlife, we find little reason for concern over the guides’ lack of specific evolution-related content knowledge. More critical to both guides and tourists are the impacts of population growth and increased tourism to the islands. Stakeholders can best serve the interests of the growing tourist population and the vigor of the Galápagos economy via conservation efforts—by developing and supporting programs that mediate the concerns raised by ecologists, protecting the islands’ fragile habitat, and regulating commercial land use. In addition, a better understanding of tourists’ motivations may provide opportunities to explore connecting evolutionary concepts to visitor interests.

On Human Nature and Philosophical Reflection of Scientific Progress - It is likely that our future will be transformed by profound changes in our knowledge and abilities in the realm of biology. New methods have made it possible to edit genetic information quickly and cheaply, and it seems inevitable that human genome editing will become a part of our future. However, public discussions reveal that such a potential future is feared by a large part of society, which questions whether human genome editing will change the nature of humanity. Now is the time for philosophy to enter and lead the dialogue between society and science, and to offer not only the reconsideration of our new knowledge and ethical dimensions of its potential applications, but, even more importantly, the reconsideration of the concept of human nature and our fear of human genome editing as such. To successfully integrate new biological technology into our society, it is vital not just to better understand our science, but to better understand ourselves.

Jesuit scholars have pursued studies in mathematics and science since the founding of the order. Authors in this issue discuss the work on magnetic declination by the Jesuit polymath Athanasius Kircher, the reform of Spanish naval education using the treatise on naval warfare by the Jesuit Paul Hoste, the Jesuit contributions to the Japanese clock-making industry, the dissemination of scientific knowledge through the Jesuit journal Brotéria , the Jesuit Erich Wasmann's attempts to grapple with Darwinian evolution, Jesuit contributions to understanding the natural environment of India, and the many accomplishments of the Jesuit-run Vatican Observatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to Michael Polanyi's theory of emergent evolution, the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is not the fundamental driving force of evolution, merely its primary lower-level condition. It follows that Polanyi does not reject Darwin's theory at all, it is part of his theory of emergent evolution too, he merely rejects the neo-Darwinian theory which denies even the possibility of higher-level principles in evolution. In Polanyi's view, according to the logic of emergence, both lower-level conditions (natural selection) and higher-level principles (mainly the ordering principle of life and evolution) determines the process of evolution, but the fundamental driving force of evolution is the living beings themselves that realize the ascending evolutionary achievements. This means that the essence of evolutionary emergence is nothing more but the emergence of (tacit) knowledge through the successive generations of living beings. If Polanyians do not accept his theory of emergent evolution and reject neo-Darwinism, which, unfortunately, they usually do not do, then his theory of tacit and personal knowledge will lose its meaning utterly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Charles Darwin’s birthday, February 12th, is an international celebration coined Darwin Day. During the week of his birthday, universities, museums, and science-oriented organizations worldwide host events that celebrate Darwin’s scientific achievements in evolutionary biology. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UT) has one of the longest running celebrations in the nation, with 2016 marking the 19th year. For 2016, the theme for our weeklong series of events was paleontology, chosen to celebrate new research in the field and to highlight the specific misconceptions of evolution within the context of geologic time. We provide insight into the workings of one of our largest and most successful Darwin Day celebration to date, so that other institutions might also be able to host their own rewarding Darwin Day events in the future.

Abstract Background Evolution is everywhere in Galápagos, especially regarding the role the islands have played in the history of evolutionary thought. In turn, the Galápagos National Park guides are in a unique position as informal science educators, as they are the primary points-of-contact for the islands’ ~ 200,000 tourists per year. Our goal was to assess the guides’ knowledge and acceptance of the theory of evolution, in addition to learning more about their perceptions of the connection between the islands and evolution. Methods We surveyed 63 guides in three towns on three of the archipelago’s populated islands. Surveys included items targeting the guides knowledge of evolution (via the Knowledge of Evolution Exam, or the KEE) and acceptance of the theory of evolution (via the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution, or the MATE). Additional, novel items gauged the guides’ perceptions of the islands, insofar as Galápagos is connected to evolution and the history of evolutionary thought. Results Although acceptance of evolution was high, knowledge was relatively low. However, the guides are proud of the islands’ association with the history of evolutionary thought, and enjoy talking about evolution while giving tours. On open-ended responses, guides claimed to especially enjoy talking with tourists about geology and island culture, and a few voiced concerns about the conflict between evolution and religion. Finally, the overwhelming majority of the guides agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I would like to learn more about Galápagos and the history of evolutionary thought.” Conclusions Galápagos guides display a disconnect between what is felt about evolution, and what is known about how evolution actually works. We can probably trace their fondness for, and acceptance of, evolution to the clear connection between evolution, tourism, and the guides’ livelihoods. We can trace their lack of knowledge to their schooling, as prior work detected similarly low knowledge of evolution in the islands’ schoolteachers. However, the guides are a receptive audience for professional development pertaining to our contemporary understanding of the mechanics of biological evolution. Improving guides’ understanding of biological evolution could, in turn, inform the evolutionary understanding of thousands of tourists each year.

This paper charts some of the theoretical inertia in marketing theory by revisiting the contribution of Veblen to consumer research in light of recent movements towards integrating evolutionary concepts from the biological sciences. By outlining the heritage of Darwinism to the social sciences more generally, and the legacy of Veblen in particular, we aim to provide some insights into how and why evolutionism has until recently remained marginal to consumer research and how these concepts can be incorporated into the discipline through existing theoretical discourse. Our account provides some insights into the processes by which disciplinary movements become structured out of and (back) into the mainstream discourses of marketing knowledge. We discuss literatures on evolutionism and consumer behaviour focusing on the work of economist and social analyst Thorstein Veblen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was, to a certain extent, influenced and shaped by external factors, including the milieu of ideas in the early-nineteenth century, regarding how the natural world should be understood. Therefore, these ideas and their influences have received considerable attention. The role of non-adaptive design ideas, however, has not been fully explored. In particular, Darwin’s requirement and rejection of the religious doctrines of adaptive and non-adaptive design, respectively, are important and often unappreciated. Here, I analyze these ideas and how they influenced Darwin’s theory of evolution. I find they played an important role in both his theory development and justification, revealing a core theological belief in Darwin’s theory; namely, that the creator would not create non-adaptive designs. This paper explores this belief and its context.

Charles Darwin und Alfred Russel Wallace postulierten, dass sich die Merkmale aller Lebewesen durch Variabilität und „Natürliche Selektion“ herausbildeten. Damit können Evolutionsbiologen die meisten Anpassungen erklären. Ein Problem sind jedoch die farbenprächtigen Federkleider vieler Vogelmännchen und deren aufwändiges und auffälliges Balzverhalten. Denn dadurch werden sie auffällig für diverse Raubfeinde und diese Merkmale müssten auf den ersten Blick einen negativen Selektionswert besitzen. Darwin erkannte das Dilemma und nahm an, dass es neben der „Natürlichen Selektion“ auch eine sexuelle Selektion geben müsse. Danach wählen die Vogelweibchen jeweils die Männchen mit dem schönsten Federkleid, Gesang oder Balzverhalten. D. h. für Darwin war Schönheit ein Wert und Selektionsmerkmal für sich. Diese These wurde von Richard Prum 2017 wieder aufgegriffen. Die meisten Evolutionsbiologen bevorzugen dagegen eine Interpretation der evolutionären Anpassung: Danach sind Schönheitsmerkmale Luxus-Merkmale der Männchen, die den Weibchen als indirekte und ehrliche Fitness-Indikatoren dienen: Nur, wenn ein Männchen sich diesen kostspieligen Luxus leisten kann (Handicap-Prinzip) und dabei auch noch überlebt, dann sollte es gute Gene tragen und fit sein. Wenn ein Vogelweibchen daher ein besonders schönes und attraktives Männchen zum Partner wählt, hat es dadurch auch ein besonders fittes Männchen selektiert, so dass die gemeinsamen Nachkommen eine besonders gute Chance zum Überleben haben. Durch sexuelle Selektion bleiben daher die Handicap-Merkmale erhalten. Obwohl Schönheit sehr stark subjektiv beeinflusst ist, gibt es offenbar evolutionäre Grundlagen, nicht nur bei Vögeln, sondern vermutlich auch bei uns Menschen.

Two new books helpfully refine the position vaunted by Theistic Evolution. These two books will garner the interest especially of the proleptic school within Theistic Evolution, which affirms (1) the long history of evolution as God's creative work; (2) the Theology of the Cross wherein God shares in the sufferings and even death of all creatures, animals included; (3) Jesus' Easter resurrection as a prolepsis of the eschatological new creation; and (4) the coincidence of creation with redemption. These two provocative new works are Bethany Sollereder's God, Evolution, and Animal Suffering: Theodicy without a Fall, along with Christopher Southgate's Theology in a Suffering World: Glory and Longing. This article tackles a problem surfacing in the work of both Sollereder and Southgate: when eliminating the fall, the combination of redemption and creation becomes incoherent. Robert John Russell's "fall without a fall" provides greater coherence in the proleptic version of Theistic Evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The year 2019 marks the 100th anniversary of the death of Ernst Haeckel, a German zoologist, artist, and philosopher of science, who defended and supplemented Charles Darwin's system of theories regarding the mechanisms of biological evolution. We briefly recapitulate Haeckel's remarkable career and reproduce the Laudatio read by the President of the Linnean Society of London (1 July 1908), when Haeckel was awarded the Darwin–Wallace Medal. Finally, we summarize the importance of Haeckel's original concepts, insights, and theories with reference to our current knowledge in the areas of evolutionary biology, molecular phylogenetics, systematic zoology, and philosophical issues today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]