Tanghe Koen B
Perspect Biol Med. 2019;62(1):72-94. doi: 10.1353/pbm.2019.0004.
Many scholars avoid the use of the term "Darwinism." It is not ideal, even to refer to Darwin's own complex and fluid thinking about evolution, let alone to modern transformations of his ideas. The addition of the prefix neo- for those modern transformations does not solve the terminological problem. The same argument can be made for Lamarckism and its cognates: they are not ideal or meaningful labels to refer to Lamarck's heterogeneous ideas. Lamarck's name is even less appropriate as a label for modern developments in biology and, particularly, for the idea of the (presumed) inheritance of acquired characters. The dichotomous framing of modern thinking about evolution in terms of "Darwinian" and "Lamarckian" is especially confusing and un-helpful. Historians are obliged to use historical terms like "Lamarckism" or "Darwinism," but philosophers and biologists should try to avoid using these terms and their cognates and learn to use more precise and less ambiguous, confusing, misleading, and emotionally charged words and phrases.
许多学者避免使用“达尔文主义”这个术语。它并不理想,甚至用来指代达尔文本人关于进化的复杂且多变的思想都不合适,更不用说用来指代他思想的现代演变了。为那些现代演变加上前缀“新”并不能解决术语问题。对于拉马克主义及其相关概念也可以提出同样的观点:它们并非指代拉马克多样化思想的理想或有意义的标签。拉马克的名字作为生物学现代发展的标签,尤其是作为(假定的)获得性性状遗传这一观点的标签,就更不合适了。现代关于进化的思维以“达尔文式”和“拉马克式”进行二分法框架划分,特别令人困惑且毫无帮助。历史学家不得不使用“拉马克主义”或“达尔文主义”等历史术语,但哲学家和生物学家应尽量避免使用这些术语及其相关概念,学会使用更精确、更不易产生歧义、困惑、误导且不带情感色彩的词汇和短语。