The History of Science Society

Vol. 39, No. 1, January 2010
Printer friendly version of Newsletter

How Not to Engage “Anti-Evolutionist” Historians

Richard Weikart, Department of History, California State University, Stanislaus

In his recent brief essay in the History of Science Society Newsletter, “Some Thoughts on Historians and Contemporary Anti-evolutionism,” John Lynch suggests that historians of science should engage anti-evolutionists’ historical arguments. I want to second this suggestion, but I hope that the level of engagement will rise far above Lynch’s own attempts.

First, it would help for historians to understand the positions of those they are engaging and to define terms carefully, so as not to end up attacking strawmen. Lynch and many other historians continually conflate Intelligent Design (ID) and creationism, and rarely do they provide definitions for either position. Ron Numbers, a staunch opponent of ID and creationism, often warns against this mistake and admits that it is a rhetorical move to discredit ID.

ID is a broad claim that intelligence is empirically detectable in nature, both in cosmology (fine tuning argument) and in biology (DNA, molecular machines, biochemical systems, etc.). ID proponents include those who accept some form of common ancestry and thus evolution broadly defined (Michael Behe), old earth creationists (William Dembski, Steve Meyer, John West), and young earth creationists (Paul Nelson). Another term Lynch uses as a synonym for ID and creationism is “anti-evolutionism.” This term does indeed characterize most ID proponents, but not all. Some ID proponents, such as Behe, believe in some kind of evolution. However, they do not believe that evolution could happen solely through random mutations. Thus, it would be more accurate to use the term “anti-Darwinist” for ID supporters, for this would include all of them, rather than simply most of them.

We should also be careful to define creationism. In the public arena this term usually means Genesis literalists who believe in a six-day miraculous creation several thousand years ago. If this is what is meant by creationism, then ID is clearly not identical with creationism. To be sure, young-earth creationists would belong to the ID camp. However, ID would also include many individuals who actively campaign against young-earth creationism.

If, on the other hand, by creationism Lynch and other historians simply mean someone who believes in some kind of intelligent being who by some means creates something or other at some time, then of course the vast majority of ID proponents are creationists (except maybe for a few skeptics, such as David Berlinski). Most people, I suspect, are not going to find this definition of creationism useful, however, since it includes the vast majority of people in the world, including multitudes of scientists. Using this definition, many biologists who clearly believe in Darwinian evolution, such as Francis Collins, would be creationists. Most theistic evolutionists would also be creationists, if we use this expansive definition.

One could define creationism in other ways than the two ways I have sketched above, of course, and that is fine with me, as long as historians define what they mean. Lynch and many other writers simply use the terms ID, creationism, and anti-evolutionism as synonyms without providing definitions, thus spoiling any attempts at analysis.

Another problem with Lynch’s analysis is that he complains that ID proponents do not engage with professional historians. After criticizing the work of three scholars—including me—who have written about some of the more unsavory ways that Darwinism has been applied—by Darwinists themselves—to ethical and social thought, Lynch complains that

Given the rigorous peer review process required for publication in leading academic journals and presses, it is unsurprising the ID proponents make little attempt to engage with the community of professional historians. . . . Unsurprisingly papers are neither presented at conferences nor published in relevant journals and little attempt is made to undergo review by practicing historians with expertise in Darwin, his ideas, and their socio-cultural effects.

Apparently Lynch is suffering from amnesia. I distinctly remember meeting him at a scholarly conference on Darwinism at Arizona State University, his home institution, in 2004. The paper I presented to that conference was subsequently published in a peer-reviewed anthology with University of Chicago Press. He also fails to mention that my two most recent books—Hitler's Ethic and From Darwin to Hitler were both published by Palgrave Macmillan, a major academic press that did peer-review my manuscripts. I have published six peer-reviewed articles on social Darwinism and related themes in leading historical journals, including one that won the best article of the year prize from the Journal of the History of Ideas. I discovered a letter by Charles Darwin relating to social Darwinism that I published in Isis. My dissertation, “Socialist Darwinism,” won the biennial prize for the best dissertation on the history of human sciences from the Forum for History of Human Science.

In addition to all this, I have presented papers at various conferences, including the History of Science Society and two academic conferences on Darwinism in 2009, one at Clemson University and the other at San Diego State University. In 2007 I was invited to an “author-meets-critics” session at the “Darwinism after Darwin” Conference at the University of Leeds. Why does none of this count as engaging professional historians and publishing peer-reviewed work?

I look forward to Lynch and others publishing peer-reviewed criticisms of my position, and I intend to reply in like manner, if possible. I hope this will lead to a fruitful exchange.

History of Science Society

How Not to Engage “Anti-Evolutionist” Historians

Quick Links....

Primary Navigation

Search

History of Science Society

Frequently Used Sites