ABSTRACT
This paper includes my first presentation of a three-way distinction between different forms of adaptationist commitment in biology: empirical, explanatory, and methodological adaptationism. Debate about adaptationism in biology has been hampered by the fact that within "the" problem of assessing adaptation ism, three distinct problems are mixed together. Each of the three positions asserts the central importance of adaptation and natural selection to the study of evolution, but conceives this importance in a different way. Understanding the distinctions between the three forms of adaptation ism does not remove all controversy, but some progress can be made through clarifYing the distinctions. In particular, evidence against one kind of adaptation ism need not be evidence against other kinds.
