Randall E. Auxier

George Holmes Howison’s 1895 essay entitled “The Limits of Evolution,” argued that there are four things evolutionary theory does not explain. In examining whether 11 decades have made a difference in these four, I argue that the arrogance of scientists over the past century in refusing to distinguish between full explanations and explanatory hypotheses is in some ways responsible for the fundamentalist backlash against evolutionary science. A scientific community that is honest and forthcoming about its limitations is to be sought. The best response to Intelligent Design, Creation Science, and other current trends in pseudoscience is to be very clear about the limits of evolutionary theory and the scope of scientific explanation.

I argue that genuine evolutionary naturalism, which characterized the first generation of pragmatism (Dewey, James, Peirce, and Mead) was replaced by a kind of naturalism that was not in any thorough-going way genuinely evolutionary. Tracing the form of naturalism inherited by Rorty and his generation to Quine's and C.I. Lewis's forms of pragmatism, I argue that this is not naturalism in any empirically defensible sense, mainly because it cannot accommodate scientific inquiry that depends on processual ideas and concepts as opposed to narrowly linguistic concepts.