When examining the impact of a theory it is beneficial, for clarification purposes,

to functionally define the theory. The problem arises when their is more than one view of
the same theory. When consulting "The American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary",
evolution was defined as a gradual process in which something changes into a different
and usually more complex or better form. While this definition may be satisfising, it is
not maximizing and is not without its biases. This definition of evolution closely
resembles the Lamarckian view where there is an end goal or supreme form. A "more
complex" or "better" form implies that there is a most complex and a best form. This is
contrary to the Darwinian view of natural selection where there is no best form, there is
only the form that best suits the needs of the organism to survive and pass on genes for
survival in that environment. This dispute has led to great works by many, as well as
entire schools of thinking.
Herbert Spencer was a man who did not formerly pursue psychology as a career,
rather it was an interest in the field that led him to do his own studying as a hobby.
Spencer was greatly influenced by J.S. Mill whoss book, "A System of Logic" which was
considered a text book for the 19th century scientists and stressed the importance of
human nature being studied empirically as opposed to just theoretically. Spencer
supported the Lamarckian view that evolution moved in the direction of getting "better".
He very much believed in the Spencer-Bain principle(Bain also influenced by J.S. Mill)
where satisfaction drove learning, or acts that produced or were followed by a positive
outcome were more likely to be repeated and visa versa. He also believed that habits
aquired by individuals where passed on to offspring. Spencer may explain our innate
ability to learn a language as being inherited as a fine tuned mechanism established by a
well practised habit. On a social level Spencer was against government regulation on
commerce. This is contrary to most modern governments like America, U.K., and Europe
who will break up monopolies or go after unfair business practises such as with Bill
Gates' Microsoft who was sued by many smaller companies for monopolizing, or Pepsi
being forced to place 30% of competitors products in their vending coolers due to a lack
of competition. Spencer opposed social programs which he viewed as just prolonging the
lives of the weak and were a burden on the strong. Spencers views encompassed his
overall idea of Social Darwinism. This term would have been better named Social
Lamarckism since for Spencer, just like Lamarck, evolution was progressive. Social
Darwinism which included the idea of "Survival of the Fittest" which imposes the idea of
a less fit and a more fit, is a progressive social ascension and is surely Lamarckian.
Francis Galton was also greatly influenced by the theory of evolution. He was an
independantly wealthy man who spent lots of time doing experiments that may not have
been of great importance, but have proved helpful nonetheless. He had an obvious
passion for labeling unnamed and previously unidentified people, places, things, and
behaviors. This is evident in his work with maps, weather, fingerprints, and personality
tests. Galton led the anthropological movement which spawned the mental test movement
where individual variability was measured. Such tests are still around today and entire
courses, like EPSY 100 level classes at S.I.U., will structure an entire semester of course
work on personality tests in an effort to give direction to undeclared students. Socially,
Galton's morals were in close proximity to Spencer's and followed the Social Darwin
view, which as stated before is progressive and therefore Lamarckian. Just like Spencer,
Galton made a clear distinction between the "fit" and the "unfit" and applied this to his
idea of eugenics. Galton thought that society should strive to increase the number of the
"fit" and decrease the number of "unfit" through selective breeding.
Charles Darwin was a scientist who was lucky enough to travel the world in an
effort to collect evidence refuting evolutionary theory. His findings, on the contrary to his
purpose, led him to support the theory. His veiw differed in that there was no end goal, or
best form of the organism. Instead he posed the idea of natural selection, or the process of
the organism changing to best suit the environment. It is a Darwinian view that humans
did not make it as far as we did based of our intelligence, rather our ability to adapt to the
environment is responcible. It just so happened that the intellegent humans were the ones
who were able to make it through an ice age or days before the protection of front doors
with padlocks. Darwin did not think to highly of emotions. Emotions may have prooved
useful in the days where one needed the excitement of the autonomic nervous system to
initiate fight or flight response, but this meant that individuals with more sensitive
emotions were able to better sense dangerous situations. However, in the world of
modern humans, emotions did little more than get in the way of rational thinking. This is
evident today with the knowledge that emotions are little more than a stimulated nervous
system and a corresponding appraisal of situation producing the need to label that feeling.
If my heart is racing, my palms sweating, and my blood pressure rising, there is no doubt
that i am feeling an emotion. It is not until i am able to reflect on the past as well as
examine the present situation, that i am able to say " i'm scared" and not "i'm excited" or
"i'm so happy".
The Theory of Evolution also gave rise to comparative psychology and the works
of G.J. Romanes and C.L. Morgan. Romanes sought to understand animal psyche and
through his idea of anthropomorphizing he paired human emotion with its corresponding
animal. Each animal was responsible for certain human thoughts. Morgan on the other
hand strongly disagreed and thought that their was no way that animals, being "lower in
the psychological scale" could effect the actions of " higher psychical faculty". We were
at a higher level and therefore, unable to be affected by the animal world.
Pragmatism is known as the school of psychology that is native to America.
Pragmatism goes past what the mind is, and instead focused on what the mind has
adapted from and into. Pragmatism was a combination of Bain's emphasis on action
tendency with truth being found in action, Darwin's Theory of Evolution with the mind
being a function of natures/species evolution, as well as Kant's phenomenology. The
ideas taken from the minds of Bain, Darwin, and Kant are basically summed up in
Peirce's Pragmatic Maxim. C.S. Peirce devised his Pragmatic Maxim which like Bain
focused on action, particularly thought which forms habitual actions. Darwins influence
on Peirce is evident in the idea that these habits are adapted to suit the organisms best
interest. Kant's phenomemological outlook is also seen in the Maxim where the truth is
not indepentant of consciousness or dependant on noumena.
Functionalism was not concerned with what the mind is, rather what its purpose
is. William James was a scientist who struggled with determinism vs. nondeterminism to
a point where he fell into depression. After reading an essay on free will James,
internalizing the power of the "will", successfully "willed" himself to choose filling his
mind with positive thoughts and came out of his depression. It may have been this ability
to completely change the way his mind functioned, that allowed him to look beyond the
obvious fact that the brain is a biological organ, to question the philosophy of it. After all
there were no little blue pills that could make him think positively, he did it all by an
internal force called "will". He did not deny the relationship between the biology and the
philosophy and believed that in order to maintain healthy habits, habits being learned
behavioral patterns with a practical end, one must constantly exercise will. The will had
the power to sustain positive thoughts while suppressing negative thinking.
With the Theory of Evolution giving rise to comparitive psychology, pragmatism,
functionalism, and behaviorism through methods of animal testing, its easy to see the
great ramifications of the theory. The impact of evolutionary theory was monumental to
say the least. The theory sparked the minds of some of the early scientists, psychologists,
and i must also mention it has sparked and fueled the fire in America between the
Conservative Christian view of creation as posed in Genesis, and the evidence provided
by science to support evolution. Not to add more fuel, but it seems that any arguement
that has to do with Evolution falls on deaf ears, for the word of God supercedes any fossil
record. However, with the evidence that only 20% of highschoolers in America recognize
Jesus as their savior, scandals within the Catholic church, as well as a failure for most
religions to connect with the western world, coupled with an increase in the number of
people pursuing acedemia via schooling, personal interest, or internet, evolutionary
theorie's voice may be heard over the cries of the church. The Theory of Evolution may
prove to have had more of an impact than we can even know or even attempt to
comprehend in 2004. It may even be possible, perhaps probable if we don't annihilate all
life first, that evolution may endure the test of time.