Search

Proponents of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) emphasize the critical role that organisms and their development play in the process of evolution. This framework explicitly rejects the genocentric focus that once dominated interpretations of the Modern Synthesis in evolutionary theory. In place of genocentrism, EES highlights processes like niche construction, developmental constraint, and extragenetic inheritance as central to any understanding of the evolutionary process. However, much more is at stake in adopting the EES than simply moving beyond the gene-dominant viewpoint of the Modern Synthesis. The EES, in fact, represents a fundamental challenge to the core of classic Darwinism itself by actively repudiating Darwin's key idea that natural selection acts as a creative force in the construction of phenotypes and phenotypic change. In this paper, we more fully explore the assumptive base of Darwinism's population-oriented, selectional focus. We demonstrate how taking development seriously in evolutionary theory mandates a systematic overhaul of Darwinism's assumptive base in favor of grounding all understanding of phenotypic construction in the developmental processes of self-organization endemic to organisms' active engagement with their worlds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theistic arguments which appeal to gaps in our scientific knowledge are frequently labelled 'God of the gaps' (GOG). While many regard such arguments as obviously fallacious (an argument from ignorance), some disagree. Drawing on critics and defenders, this article examines the logical validity of GOG, stated in two distinct formulations: (1) It is not proven that 'God is active in this corner of nature' is false; therefore God is indeed here; (2) it is not proven that 'there is a natural cause for this event' is true; therefore there is no natural cause or explanation. The difference is more than semantic; while the perceived wisdom mostly targets the first version, recent advocates match the second more closely. Neither formulation of GOG is fallacious once the logical structures and implicit premises are identified; the first version is best categorized as an assertion of burden of proof, and the second an instance of denying the consequent. As their merits are assessed against well-known objections, the second version is found to be considerably stronger than the first. It can be a solid argument, assuming that its empirical premises are supported by strong evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At issue is the degree to which Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection is to blame for violence caused by communism, Nazism, and other societal dysfunctions. Conservative Christian opponents claim Darwinism undermines Biblical authority and supports ideologies causing violence. Secular and Christian supporters of Darwinism argue that Darwinism has not promoted violence but has been used to provide a scientific rationale for violence that would have been caused anyway. Moreover, Christian supporters of Darwinism maintain that Darwinism is by no means incompatible with the Bible. This paper examines claims by both sides as well as the attempts by Darwinism's Christian opponents to supplant Darwinism with theories which they hope will restore Biblical authority, including Creationism, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design theory. The paper concludes that despite the legal setbacks encountered by adherents to these alternative theories, the conflict continues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two distinct teleological perspectives emerge from the ancient Greek tradition. (1) Platonic teleology, which represents teleology as the result of intentional agency and is the origin of the idea of design; and (2) Aristotelian teleology, which introduces teleology as the result of natural and intrinsic causes. The preceding framework for understanding nature was superseded by the advent of the modern era and the establishment of the scientific method. Nevertheless, despite the prevailing skepticism regarding the possibility and utility of teleology in the modern era, it is asserted that several prominent scientists of the modern era are staunch defenders of teleology (design). However, with Darwin's proposal of the theory of evolution, the path to the destruction of teleology was initiated. This article examines the interconnection between Darwin's theory of evolution (then neo-Darwinism) and teleology, focusing on how this theory effectively undermines the teleological perspective. However, it seems that recent findings in the field of biology challenge this dominant view and open the way for the revival of teleology.

Bas van Fraassen's Darwinian explanation for the success of science has sparked four decades of discussion, with scientific realists and antirealists alike using biologically inspired reasoning to support their points of view. Based on critical engagement with van Fraassen's proposal itself and later contributions by Stathis Psillos and K. Brad Wray, we claim that central arguments on both sides of this controversy suffer from an insufficient understanding of Darwinism and its underlying biological concepts. Adding the necessary biological background turns out to subvert the argumentative force of viewing the success of scientific theories as analogous to the behaviour of biotic entities. In conclusion, we sketch more productive ways of viewing the relationship between biology and scientific realism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article questions the secularist assumption in the received narrative of Chinese modernity by uncovering the religious ideas and imaginations that have since the outset mediated and shaped the Chinese discovery of evolutionary science, a massive phenomenon that has conventionally been understood in a scientistic and secularistic light. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, this article revisits Tianyan lun —the Chinese translation of Thomas Henry Huxley's Evolution and Ethics and the single most influential book in initiating late-Qing intellectuals into social Darwinism—as a site for Buddhist global exchange and translingual practice, when the notion of "karma" offered Huxley and his Chinese translator and readers at once a ground of convergence and a point of departure. To Lu Xun and his brother Zhou Zuoren, from a hereditary perspective, karma has assumed the other name of history, while evolution unfolded in perpetual entanglements of humans and ghosts under a samsaric temporal scheme. Lu Xun's obsession with the netherworld has fostered, on the one hand, a deep pessimism about human developmental agency and the promise of the revolution and, on the other hand, an existential courage to confront the "realm of darkness." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to compare the theory of Gestalt qualities, introduced by the Austrian philosopher Christian von Ehrenfels (1859–1932), with the concept of Umwelt, proposed by Jakob von Uexküll (1864–1944). The primary basis for the comparison will be the phenomenology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908–1961), who extensively discusses the two concepts in his work. In the Uexküll–Ehrenfelsian context, we focus on analysing the similarities and differences of their argumentation and model approaches to understanding the living and non-living natural entities, their mutual communication, development, and ontological grounding. We also consider the role of individual experience with the environment: in that context, the metaphysical frameworks within which the two thinkers operate in their efforts to explain natural phenomena are central to our comparative reflections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Progress in language, "the idea put forward by Otto Jespersen, known as a Darwinist in the field of linguistics, has shown its subtle relationship with Charles Darwin's slogan of "the survival for the fittest." Based on the texts that Jespersen wrote and published in English, German and Danish from 1886 to 1941, this essay starts from a critique of his thoughts on English monosyllabism and explores the sources of his ideas on "progress in language," in order to prove that progress is not merely a reflection of Darwinism in linguistics, but a natural consequence of Jespersen's research on the history of phonological evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ever since its inception, the theory of evolution has been reified into an "-ism": Darwinism. Although biologists today, by and large, do not use the term "Darwinism" in their research, it still enjoys currency in broader academic and societal contexts. "Darwinian approaches" proliferate across the sciences and humanities and, in public discourse, various so-called "Darwinian views on life" are perceived to have ethically and politically laden consequences. What exactly is Darwinism, and how precisely are its nonscientific uses related to the scientific theory of evolution? Some claim the term's meaning should be limited to scientific content, yet others call for its abolition altogether. In this paper, we propose a unified account of these varieties of Darwinism. We show how the theories introduced by Darwin have grounded a "logic" or style of reasoning about phenomena, as well as various ethically and politically charged "worldviews." The full meaning of Darwinism, as well as how this meaning has changed over time, can only be understood through the complex interaction between these dimensions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The popularity of instinct theory—the core of Thorstein Veblen's evolutionary methodology—waned with the rise of behavioral psychology in the 1920s, and resurges with the revival of evolutionary psychology in the 1980s. This study reexamines Charles Darwin's theories of natural and sexual selection within Veblen's theory. By tracing the origin of emulation, this study explores the human struggle for existence at both inter-species and individual levels, enhancing our understanding of Veblen's theory as rooted in Darwinism and reinterpreted within Geoffrey Hodgson's concept of emergence. Differing from Clarence Ayres' dichotomy, analysis resituates Veblen's instinct theory within contemporary evolutionary psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At issue is the degree to which Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection is to blame for violence caused by communism, Nazism, and other societal dysfunctions. Conservative Christian opponents claim Darwinism undermines Biblical authority and supports ideologies causing violence. Secular and Christian supporters of Darwinism argue that Darwinism has not promoted violence but has been used to provide a scientific rationale for violence that would have been caused anyway. Moreover, Christian supporters of Darwinism maintain that Darwinism is by no means incompatible with the Bible. This paper examines claims by both sides as well as the attempts by Darwinism’s Christian opponents to supplant Darwinism with theories which they hope will restore Biblical authority, including Creationism, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design theory. The paper concludes that despite the legal setbacks encountered by adherents to these alternative theories, the conflict continues.

This study situates Henry Havelock Ellis's sexological research within the nineteenth-century evolutionary debates, especially the discussion over sexual selection's applicability to humanity. For example, Ellis's monograph on sexual behavior, Sexual Inversion (1897), treated inborn homosexuality as a natural variation of evolutionary mechanisms. This book was situated within a longer study of human sexuality in relation to evolutionary selection. His later works dealt even more directly with Charles Darwin's concept of selection, such as Sexual Selection in Man (1905). Through Sexual Selection in Man, Ellis asserted that sexual attraction stemmed from a physical cause rather than an innate aesthetic sense. I argue that Ellis's best-known historical publications, including his work on sexual inversion, were intended to intervene in the contemporary evolutionary debates. This analysis also identifies a specific point where evolutionary theory informed the foundation of sexology as a scientific discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Cahiers Victoriens & Edouardiens is the property of Presses Universitaires de la Mediterranee 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.)

In the construction of philology as a scientific discipline, the history of language became the appropriate subject for putting the new methodology into practice. In Spain, the philologists of the Centro de Estudios Históricos de Madrid also based their studies on the establishment of a historical and evolutionary description of the Castilian language, for which they had to turn to the study of its first manifestations. In this article we propose to tell how the first advances were made in a discipline that moved from the field of research, with the work of the Center, to the academic field with the creation of the Chair of History of the Castilian language. A key date in this process was 1914, when the Revista de Filología Española was founded. That year a new plan of studies was established in the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters of the Universidad Central de Madrid (Spain), which created the chair of History of the language, which was taken over by Américo Castro, who that same year published the translation of Meyer-Lübke’s book, Introducción al estudio de la lingüística romance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Dîvân: Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies / Disiplinlerarasi Calismalar Dergisi is the property of Bilim ve Sanat Vakfi 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.)

The following study presents a concise historical overview of natural philosophy, examining the interpretations of the human psyche and their development up until the contemporary era. The presentation focuses on some of the main theories regarding the nature and functions of the mind, aiming to contrast them with one of the unfulfilled intellectual projects of the Romanian polymath C. Rădulescu-Motru. Specifically, his project aimed to establish a philosophical system addressing the intricacies of the human soul in the context of the scientific advances considered modern at the time–a system he referred to as the new science of the soul. His objective was to provide a comprehensive perspective encompassing all areas of knowledge in order to mitigate their tendency towards determinism, mechanism and biologism, which were spreading from the direction of the natural science.

Survival discourse has emerged as a prominent theme in online discussions about the US–China trade war on the Chinese social media platform Zhihu. This study undertakes a critical discourse analysis of this emergent discourse by examining 80 answers (totaling 95,753 words) from Zhihu users within the broader context of the invocation of survival discourses in modern Chinese history. An intertextual method was adopted in this study, which helps us to better understand netizens' arguments in favor of the Chinese government's tough stance on the trade war with the US and the probable success of this strategy. The analysis reveals the historicity and intertextuality of these discourses, identifies strategies which are employed to support a tough stance on the trade war, and reflects on their implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While a systematic comparison of the similarities and differences between Jewish and Muslim approaches to evolution is beyond the scope of this study, it is possible to note some of the most striking observations. Among the key differences highlighted by an historical perspective on Jewish approaches in the late-nineteenth to present day are the phenomenon of panentheistic tendences among Jewish commentators and the practice of defining the position of Judaism against that of Christianity. In response to Malik's theological approach, which attempted to identify medieval traditions as potential resources for contemporary Muslim evolutionists, it proved to be an interesting counter-factual exercise to generate a comparable list of pre-modern theological resources for Jewish evolutionists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I examine the concept of granting for the sake of the argument in the context of explanatory reasoning. I discuss a situation where S wishes to argue for H1 as a true explanation of evidence E and also decides to grant, for the sake of the argument, that H2 is an explanation of E. S must then argue that H1 and H2 jointly explain E. When H1 and H2 compete for the force of E, it is usually a bad idea for S to grant H2 for the sake of the argument. If H1 and H2 are not positively dependent otherwise, there is a key argumentative move that he will have to make anyway in order to retain a place at the table for H1 at all—namely, arguing that the probability of E given H2 alone is low. Some philosophers of religion have suggested that S can grant that science has successfully provided natural explanations for entities previously ascribed to God, while not admitting that theism has lost any probability. This move involves saying that the scientific explanations themselves are dependent on God. I argue that this "granting" move is not an obvious success and that the theist who grants these scientific successes may have to grant that theism has lost probability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The idea of an inevitable conflict between science and religion leading to relentless hostility between the two emerged in the nineteenth century and has become a powerful narrative of modernity. Most historians of science trace the origins of the so-called 'conflict thesis' to the English-speaking world, more precisely to scientist-historian John William Draper and literary scholar Andrew Dickson White. Their books on the history of scientific-religious conflict turned into bestsellers. Yet, if we look beyond the Anglo-American world, the conflict thesis appears in new historical settings. This paper argues that the science vs. religion narrative flourished already in Germany before Draper and White announced the warfare between science and religion in England and the USA. Focusing on Germany, we aim to show that the conflict thesis emerged in a polycentric process shaped by various political, cultural, and social struggles. It became a rhetorical weapon for liberal scientists in Germany to oppose Ultramontanism and, at the same time, to discredit their rivals as unscientific, fanatic, or even as 'henchmen' of the Pope. Our paper makes a case for a decentred approach to the history of the conflict thesis, which brings to the fore specific political and cultural tensions shaping this narrative in the nineteenth century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Akofena is the property of Universite Felix Houphouet Boigny 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.)

In the Germany of the 1860s and 1870s, the problem of the value of life was urgently debated, as a consequence of the two culture-defining systems of thought that had risen to prominence in those decades—Schopenhauerian Weltschmerz and the theory of evolution—and the degree to which they could be reconciled. On one hand, the struggle for existence affirmed the pessimistic inference as to the suffering and meaninglessness of the cosmos; on the other, it appeared to promise moral and material improvement in human affairs. This article reconstructs the historical connections between the emergence of pessimism and Darwinism, most clearly represented by the work of Eduard von Hartmann, and it argues that Nietzsche's programmatic statements on life, culture, and pessimism, from the Untimely Meditations on, are best understood in light of this context and his engagement with Hartmann's writings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to explain why, while Charles Darwin was well recognized as a scientific leader of his time, Claude Bernard never really regarded Darwinism as a scientific theory. The lukewarm reception of Darwin at the Académie des Sciences of Paris and his nomination to a chair only after 8 years contrasts with his prominence, and Bernard's attitude towards Darwin's theory of species evolution belongs to this French context. Yet we argue that Bernard rejects the scientific value of Darwinian principles mainly for epistemological reasons. Like Darwin, Bernard was interested in hereditary processes, and planned to conduct experiments on these processes that could lead to species transformation. But the potential creation of new forms of life would not vindicate Darwinism since biologists can only explain the origin of morphotypes and morphological laws by the means of untestable analogies. Because it can be the object neither of experiments nor of any empirical observation, phylogeny remains out of science's scope. Around 1878 Bernard foresaw a new general physiology based on the study of protoplasm, which he saw as the agent of all basic living phenomena. We will analyze why Bernard regarded Darwinism as part of metaphysics, yet still referred to Darwinians in his latter works in 1878. Basically, the absence of a scientific reception of Darwinism in Bernard's work should not obscure its philosophical reception, which highlights the main principles of Bernard's epistemology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A distinctive feature of many Jewish approaches to evolutionary theory has been a panentheistic understanding of the cosmos. Among the earliest Hebrew translations of Darwin are those found in Toldot Adam or The Origin of Man (1874) by the Polish Jewish Naphtali Levy (1840–1894). Often regarded as a traditionalist who sought to harmonize science and Torah, Levy was in fact much more radical and was prepared to prioritise evolutionary science over tradition. Remarkably, God was portrayed as an impersonal natural force, morality was conceived as the result of the "struggle for existence," and the bestial origins of humanity were privileged over special creation in the image of God. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PAVLOVKINOVÁ, Blažena. Research on the Reception of Darwinism in Slovakia around the Turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Historický časopis, 2023, 71, 3, pp. 59–86, Bratislava. The study deals with the reception of Darwin´s Theory of Evolution in the Slovak national movement around the turn of the 19th and the 20th centuries. The reception of Darwinism is analysed as a phenomenon overhanging the framework of scientific theory and as a component of the all-European discourse, encompassing the worldview, philosophical, sociocultural and political polemics of the second half of the 19th century. The starting point of the analysis is a definition of reception as one of the forms of circulation of knowledge, including not only positive receiving of new ideas, but also their modification or denial. The ideas coming out of Charles Darwin´s theory were spread predominantly by texts with the character of popularization such as reviews, newspaper and journal articles, pamphlets or books. There was a lack of professional, scientific reception of Darwinism in Slovak publications up to the year 1918, a worldview character of reception was dominant. Authors usually did not limit themselves to factual explanation of evolutional theory and Darwin´s observations, they combined scientific facts and hypothesis with affective philosophical speculations in efforts to provide universal answers to the questions about the secrets of the origin and the essence of the existence of human beings and nature. The reception of the Slovak intelligentsia was focused on various “Darwinisms”, in which Darwin´s Theory of evolution inspired concepts like the monism of Ernst Haeckel or social Darwinism. The reception of evolutionary theory also influenced political practice and rhetoric. Instrumentalization and ideologization was an accompanying feature of the reception of Darwinian evolutionary theory throughout the European intellectual circles, including those active in the processes of national emancipation, as in the case of the Slovak intelligentsia.

On Human and other Apes of the kind: Darwinism, Paleoanthropology and Archaeogenetics The affirmation and diffusion of darwinism in Europe coincides with the birth of paleoanthropology. This paper analyzes the interaction between these elements from a historical perspective, underlining on the one hand the relevance of paleoanthropology within the reception of Darwin’s theories at the time, and on the other hand, the importance of recent discoveries in the field of human evolution, stemming from the so-called “Revolution of ancient DNA”. The fall of all anthropological models, brought forward by the implementation of archaeogenetics, opens a new season in the study of humanity’s deep past: the human “family tree” has been chopped down, and in its place, an unexpected and more complex scenario seems to unravel.

Constantin Leonardescu (1844–1907) was a professor of philosophy for 34 years at the University of Iași. He was an adept of the French eclectic spiritualism, which he tried to reconcile with the positivism of Herbert Spencer and with the Darwinism of Ernst Haeckel, while countering Vasile Conta’s brand of scientific materialism. Leonardescu argued against the positivist tenet of the incompatibility of metaphysics and positive science, based on the emergence of new “partial” or “local” metaphysics in the thought of contemporary genuine scientists, who philosophized disregarding the former metaphysical tradition, using only the concepts of their own disciplines and forging their own principles. Positive metaphysics exists thus potentially, the metaphysician’s task being to systematize, or to “reconcile” the local contributions of the scientists-philosophers in the framework of a general, unifying theory. This framework, he argues, is a generalization of “Darwinism”, that is, of the special metaphysics initiated by Darwin, then rendered general by Spencer and most importantly by Haeckel. However, philosophical Darwinism or “evolutionary monism” curiously vindicates, in Leonardescu’s view, traditional spiritualism. Generalized Darwinism thus interpreted offered a fundamental theory in which science could achieve systematic unity and become a true mirror of the Totality, which is metaphysics’ true object. Scientific metaphysics is principally a reflection upon science, taking as starting point the positive facts recognized as such by the sciences, and the empirical generalizations validated within each science, and aiming to ensure logical coherence amongst them, under the rule of the supreme evolution-principle.