Although Darwinism has gained a foothold in the social sciences, in the humanities, with a few exceptions, it is still largely rejected--not, as some would claim, because humanists are all radical poststructuralists who deny that material reality exists, but rather because, with notable exceptions, Darwinists who work within the humanities have adopted a trenchant "us against them," in-group/out-group mentality that has done a good deal more harm than good. In order for evolution to be effectively taught as part of a humanistic approach to literature and art, a more productive, truly "two way" approach is necessary, and must do more than impose the scientific method on the humanities. When this kind of imposition occurs, the humanities are treated "only" as subject matter, thereby discounting historical and interpretive research that is invaluable to scientists and claims they might make in these areas. This paper claims that for evolution to function as a paradigm with true explanatory power across disciplines, scientifically oriented evolutionists need training in humanistic methodologies just as much as humanistically oriented evolutionists need training in the scientific method. Evolution, in this context, becomes not the paradigm that can explain everything from a scientific point of view but rather the beginnings of a conversation about lower and upper level questions, and how these questions might inform and enrich each other's research.