Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42 (2011) 1
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and
Biomedical Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsc
Foreword: Celebrating Charles Darwin in disagreement
Richard G. Delisle
Philosophy and Liberal Education, University of Lethbridge, Canada
When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences
Perhaps the greatest honor that can be given to the English nat-
uralist Charles Darwin (1809-1882)—having just celebrated the
200th anniversary of the birth and the 150th anniversary of the
publication of On the Origin of Species in 2009—is to continue to dis-
agree about his work. In light of what constitutes today a remark-
ably lively and vigorous debate about Darwinism, it is fairly clear
that Darwin’s work has not yet past its ‘‘sell-by’’ date, to borrow
Michel Ruse’s expression used in this issue. Indeed, to be the focal
point of disagreements is pretty much to be in control of the re-
search agenda. Contributors such as Timothy Shanahan and Daniel
Brooks even invite us to rediscover afresh the relevance of Dar-
win’s own evolutionary conceptions.
Ever since Charles Darwin published the Origin of Species in
1859, scholars have been unceasingly involved in exploring the
various implications of the theory of natural selection. These impli-
cations are not only numerous but also cover a wide range of dis-
ciplines. For instance, several distinct conceptions of a biological
evolution of selective nature are possible, as explored by David De-
pew, Kent Peacock, and Frédéric Bouchard. In addition, the notion
of a changing world influenced by natural selection has somewhat
controversially found its way in the social sciences (ethics and so-
cial Darwinism), as demonstrated by Bryson Brown and Daniel
Becquemont. Furthermore, it can be argued, as is done here by
Bruce Weber (self-organization) and Daniel Brooks (thermody-
1369-8486/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.015
namics) that the physicochemical sciences are certainly not with-
out relevance for understanding biological evolution.
More than a mere biological theory, Darwinism has rapidly be-
come a dynamic, multi-dimensional, and evolving research entity
with near-universal implications for science, a context which has
in turn subjected it to various ideological, methodological, episte-
mological, and metaphysical influences and pressures. This is true
to the point that more than one hundred and fifty years after Dar-
win’s original publication, the nature of the changing research en-
tity called Darwinism is still very much unsettled. This elusiveness
is especially captured here by David Hull, Jonathan Hodge, Mauri-
zio Esposito, Richard Delisle, and Michel Morange.
In the context of Darwin’s double anniversaries, it was thought
timely to present a series of reflections upon the nature of the com-
plex and changing research entity known as Darwinism (broadly
construed) in this special issue entitled Defining Darwinism: One
Hundred and Fifty Years of Debate.
As most of the papers emerged from a Symposium of the same
title held at the University of Lethbridge (Alberta, Canada) between
12-14 November 2009, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to
the following contributors for their generous financial assistance:
The University of Lethbridge: the President; the Deans of Arts
and Science, Education, Fine Arts, and Health Sciences; the Depart-
ment of Philosophy; and the Program of Liberal Education.