Although he was not one of the main philosophers we have studied, Charles Darwin and his theories and ideas have greatly influenced American philosophy as we know it. Even ask Auguste Comte (Positivism), John Fiske with his "Law of Evolution", Chauncey Wright with "Genesis of the Species", and John Dewey's "Darwin's Influence on Philosophy." Most people associate Charles Darwin with the words "evolution", "natural selection", and "survival of the fittest", but I associate the word "pragmatism" with him. I believe Darwin's theories and philosophies have had a great impact on pragmatism.

Charles Robert Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, England on February 12, 1809. He was the fifth child to a wealthy English family. Upon graduating elite school (high school) in 1825, Darwin set out to the University of Edinburgh to study medicine. He dropped out in 1827 to attend the University of Cambridge in hopes of becoming a clergyman for the Church of England. There he met John Stevens Henslow, a naturalist who taught him to be a scrupulous observer of nature.

At the age of 22, Darwin set sail on the HMS Beagle for a scientific expedition. It is said that Darwin was most impressed with the effect that natural forces had on the earth's surface. While in the Galapagos Islands, he noticed that each individual island sustained its own tortoise, mockingbird, and finch. Each was closely related with its counterparts, but had different eating habits and physical makeups. These observations really made Darwin question the different links between distinct but similar species of animal.

Upon returning to England after his journey, Darwin began to expand upon his observations, and eventually (twenty years later) formulated his "On the Origin of Species". The book was published in 1859 and known as "the book that shook the world". It sold out in the first day of release.
Darwin ended up marrying his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood. He moved to a small estate outside of London, where he had ten children, three of which died at birth (I wonder why).

Charles Darwin died on April 19, 1882. It was around that time that another philosophical era, Pragmatism, was brewing. Pragmatism originated in the United States in the late 1800s. It was originally developed by Charles Sanders Peirce, and further expanded upon by William James in the United States. Since the conception of pragmatism, Peirce's and James' ideas together have brought into light a whole new means of practical thinking.

Darwin's practical theory of evolution and natural selection has impacted the entire world and many of the ways in which we think. It has influenced (and is still influencing) not only biology and the natural sciences, but psychology, sociology, and philosophy as well. Darwin spent years coming up with his theory. A major concept of it is that of natural selection.

In short, natural selection is this: Just like a dog breeder may take two different types of dogs and breed them to produce, for example, certain spots on the bred dog's back or a certain length snout, nature "selects" different types of animals better suited to live in certain environments. If they are not suited for that environment, they either (1) flee to a different environment, or (2) physically adapt to the environment in which they currently live, or (3) become extinct.

Another example would be a snake. A venomous coral snake's stripes have evolved to mimic those of a non-venomous king snake so that he can imitate the innocence of the coral snake, but really attack, poison, and kill his prey.

His ideas of evolution are so cut-and-dry and make complete sense. They are a very pragmatic approach to the theory of the evolution of animals, specifically man. Scientific evidence is and has been constantly backing up Darwin's theory. Before (as well as after) his theory had arisen, paleontologists and geologists had been proving that life had existed on earth for a very long time and that many different species had been changing and evolving constantly throughout their existence.

Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and theory of evolution has been argued by many people, including other scientists. Most of his attacks surrounding the theory, though, were verbalized by religious opponents. These religious-folk claimed that Darwin's theory denied special creation, contradicting orthodox theological opinion. It is understandable because religion has been practiced since the birth of time. And now when a new theory comes along, everybody gets scared because it makes so much sense, even with a bit of evidence to back it up. But the religious-folk do not want this new way of thinking to take over what they have believed in forever.

Now, I am not claiming to be an atheist, agnostic, or anything like that. Rather, I am speaking from the point of view of a pragmatist, a logical thinker, a literalist, a rational thinker. It is so practical because it makes such sense.

The religious theory against Darwin's theory of evolution is that of intelligent design. This theory states that everything in nature was created by an intelligent designer (i.e. God) and was not created by chance (natural selection).

What happens when those who have believed in the biblical stories of creation from the book of Genesis (i.e. that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, and that Adam and Eve were the first humans put on this earth) realize that all along they had been believing the wrong thing? They would then begin to think things like, "Well if I thought that theory was true all this time, and now find out that it's not, what other truths in my life are false that I don't know about yet? In what other lies am I living?" If that was me, that is the way I would be thinking, because it is a very pragmatic and practical approach.

But which one is 'correct'? It is impossible for a person to put their faith in more than one of these theories. That would be like looking at a granny smith apple and saying that it is green, and at the same time saying that it is also red. Impossible. One must only believe in one theory. Either God was an intelligent designer and created the world in six days, or it was produced by a random series of events (i.e. the Big Bang Theory) and evolved through time. Should one believe based on fact/theory and scientific evidence? Or should one believe on faith alone?

The debate on which theory to believe is a test of faith. Take intelligent design first. There are no proofs, facts, or laws that verify that God had created the world in six days. Nor are there any proofs that he put Adam and Eve on this planet (or, for that matter, that Adam and Eve even existed). Also, God has never been seen either. People who believe this theory must have a large amount of faith, believing in something that has never been proven.
According to pragmatism, it technically would be unpragmatic to believe in such a theory, a theory of religion.

Now take Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection. His theory has been proven through numerous accounts of scientific exploration. Now, the true facts of his theory are not able to be totally proven because we cannot travel back through time. But many experiments and paleontological findings prove that some form of evolution has occurred. That is why a lot of people believe this theory. It is easy to understand and has basically been proven. Intelligent design, however, has not been and can not be proven. It also requires a great amount of faith, which many people lack or are just too lazy to even try to believe.

All in all, according to pragmatism, it would be most pragmatic for one to believe in Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection, rather than believing in any given religion. I believe Darwin's theories for once made people begin to think logically and practically, rather than thinking based on faith alone. His theories are pragmatic in that they are a practical means of thinking.

Anyway, religious beliefs are supposed to affirm one's morals and values, should tell one how to act, how to treat each other, how to treat oneself. Religion, from a pragmatic view though, should not claim the whereabouts and evolution of man.