Search

This essay responds to Peter T. Saunders's call to go Beyond the neo-Darwinist Paradigm. While there is much to commend in his analysis, especially his suggestion that the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) may not go far enough, he leaves the question of whether this should involve mere revision or total replacement open. A historiographical review reveals significant problems stemming from certain positivist assumptions and commitments within neo-Darwinian orthodoxy and the EES over and above any scientific considerations. As such, mere tweaking of the existing paradigm or its extension will do little to remedy the intellectual prejudices currently plaguing it. A complete overhaul is suggested by applying the López Ontological Demarcation Design (LODD) principle with biology in a multidisciplinary, non-reductionist philosophical framework. Building on the concept of Organismic-Systems Biology (OSB), a component of General Systems Theory (GTS) associated with poly mathic biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972), and cosmic evolution (CE) proposed by UCLA philosopher John Elof Boodin (1869-1950), the outline of a new evolutionary synthesis is offered as a prolegomenon to further study and evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913), naturalist and explorer of South America and the Malay Archipelago, secured his place in history by independently discovering the theory of natural selection. His letter outlining the theory was sent from Ternate in eastern Indonesia and received at Down House, according to Charles Darwin (1809-82), on June 18, 1858, prompting the now-famed evolutionist to rush his languishing manuscript to press. Wallace's contributions to evolutionary biology, biogeography, and anthropology are well known, but his medical views have received far less attention. Within the context of a strident populist antivaccination movement and an ominous elitist eugenics campaign, Wallace took his stand, which revealed itself in a libertarianism that defended traditional socialist constituencies (the working poor, the lumpenproletariat, and feminist reformers) against state-mandated medical interventions. Rather than viewing Wallace as a heterodox contrarian, this article argues that his positions were logical outgrowths of his medical libertarianism and evolutionary and social theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alfred Russel Wallace's conception of evolution and its relation to natural theology is examined. That conception is described as intelligent evolution—directed, detectably designed, and purposeful common descent. This essay extends discussion of the forces and influences behind Wallace's journey from the acknowledged co-discoverer of natural selection, to include his much lesser known position within the larger history of natural theology. It will do so by contextualizing it with an analysis of Darwin's metaphysical commitments identified as undogmatic atheism. In this sense, David Kohn's thesis that Darwin was the "last of the natural theologians" is revised to suggest that Wallace deserves to be included within the larger context of the British natural theologians in a surprisingly Paleyan tradition. As such, an important object of this essay is to clear away the historical fog that has surrounded this aspect of Wallace. That "fog" is composed of various formal historical fallacies that will be outlined in the penultimate section. Once described, explained, and corrected, Wallace becomes an enduring figure in carrying the British tradition of natural theology into the twentieth century and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is often assumed that direction and purpose in nature—teleology—is a dead relic of the past, a result of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859) and Descent of Man (1871). But teleology has had a long and complex relationship with science. This paper will trace its general history with an emphasis upon the life sciences, especially biology. Particularly important is the fact that all teleology is not equal; strong (transcendent) teleology (designated Ts) should be distinguished from weak (purely descriptive and utilitarian) teleology (designated Tw). A working definition of teleology in its most meaningful aspects is then given. The challenges that Darwinism faced in dealing with purpose in nature are discussed, as is their proposed solution in the evolutionary synthesis, and the persistence of Ts following that synthesis is outlined and critiqued. Evidence of Ts persistence in the life sciences is presented with several relevant examples, and strong teleology is further differentiated by specific (Ts+) and nonspecific (Ts−) varieties. This essay concludes that Ts remains an ongoing and integral part of the life sciences and will likely remain so, even though it may be true but not verifiable empirically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]