A Critical Evaluation of Existing Interpretations of the “Eclipse of Darwinism”

This chapter critically analyzes interpretations of the “eclipse of Darwinism.” Ernst Mayr’s philosophy, influenced by Darwinian epistemology, reveals a Whiggish historiography that emphasizes the centrality of Darwinism and dismisses non-Darwinian theories as unscientific. Peter Bowler’s interpretation follows Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy by assuming the existence of a single dominant paradigm. This leads to the view that Darwinism was considered unscientific, which contradicts historical data. It is also revealed that P. Bowler, like E. Mayr, attributes non-Darwinian theories to psychologism and ideological factors. Modern proposals include Marck Largent’s triumphalist perspective, which treats the “eclipse” as a mere preparation for the modern synthesis. Critical analysis of M. Largent’s interpretation raises questions about the study of the “eclipse” independently of modern science and highlights problems of presentism. The chapter concludes with a summary proposing a non-presentist historiography, based on Hasok Chang’s pluralism, to study the “eclipse” as a distinct period in the history of science and to recognize its relations with the emerging modern synthesis.