【剑桥哲学指南】达尔文

【剑桥哲学指南】达尔文

thecambridgecompaniontoDARWINSecondEditionEachvolumeinthisseriesofcompanionstomajorphiloso-pherscontainsspeciallycommissionedessaysbyanin-ternationalteamofscholars,togetherwithasubstantialbibliography,andwillserveasareferenceworkforstudentsandnon-specialists.Oneaimoftheseriesistodispeltheintimidationsuchreadersoftenfeelwhenfacedwiththeworkofadifficultandchallengingthinker.ThenaturalistandgeologistCharlesDarwin(1809–82)ranksasoneofthemostinfluentialscientificthinkersofalltime.Inthenineteenthcenturyhisideasaboutthehistoryanddiversityoflife–includingtheevolutionaryoriginofhumankind–contributedtomajorchangesinthesciences,philosophy,socialthoughtandreligiousbelief.TheCambridgeCompaniontoDarwinhasestablisheditselfasanindispensableresourceforanyoneteachingorresearchingDarwin’stheoriesandtheirhistoricalandphilosophicalinterpretations.Forthissecondedition,coveragehasbeenexpandedtoincludetwonewchapters:onDarwin,Humeandhumannature,andonDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun,fromthepre-Socraticstothepresent.JonathanHodgeisSeniorFellowinHistoryandPhilosophyofScienceattheUniversityofLeeds.GregoryRadickisSeniorLecturerinHistoryandPhilosophyofScienceattheUniversityofLeeds.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nothervolumesintheseriesofcambridgecompanionsABELARDEditedbyjeffreye.browerandkevinguilfoyADORNOEditedbythomashuhnANSELMEditedbybriandaviesandbrianleftowAQUINASEditedbynormankretzmannandeleonorestumpARABICPHILOSOPHYEditedbypeteradamsonandrichardc.taylorHANNAHARENDTEditedbydanavillaARISTOTLEEditedbyjonathanbarnesATHEISMEditedbymichaelmartinAUGUSTINEEditedbyeleonorestumpandnormankretzmannBACONEditedbymarkkupeltonenBERKELEYEditedbykennethp.winklerBRENTANOEditedbydalejacquetteCARNAPEditedbymichaelfriedmanandrichardcreathCRITICALTHEORYEditedbyfredrushDARWIN2ndEditionEditedbyjonathanhodgeandgregoryradickSIMONEDEBEAUVOIREditedbyclaudiacardDESCARTESEditedbyjohncottinghamDUNSSCOTUSEditedbythomaswilliamsEARLYGREEKPHILOSOPHYEditedbya.a.longEARLYMODERNPHILOSOPHYEditedbydonaldrutherfordFEMINISMINPHILOSOPHYEditedbymirandafrickerandjenniferhornsbyFOUCAULT2ndEditionEditedbygaryguttingFREUDEditedbyjeromeneuGADAMEREditedbyrobertj.dostalGALENEditedbyr.j.hankinsonGALILEOEditedbypetermachamerGERMANIDEALISMEditedbykarlameriksGREEKANDROMANPHILOSOPHYEditedbydavidsedleyHABERMASEditedbystephenk.whiteCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nHAYEKEditedbyedwardfeserHEGELEditedbyfrederickc.beiserHEGELANDNINETEENTH-CENTURYPHILOSOPHYEditedbyfrederickc.beiserHEIDEGGER2ndEditionEditedbycharlesguignonHOBBESEditedbytomsorellHOBBES’‘LEVIATHAN’EditedbypatriciaspringborgHUME2ndEditionEditedbydavidfatenortonandjacquelinetaylorHUSSERLEditedbybarrysmithanddavidwoodruffsmithWILLIAMJAMESEditedbyruthannaputnamKANTEditedbypaulguyerKANTANDMODERNPHILOSOPHYEditedbypaulguyerKEYNESEditedbyrogere.backhouseandbradleyw.batemanKIERKEGAARDEditedbyalastairhannayandgordonmarinoLEIBNIZEditedbynicholasjolleyLEVINASEditedbysimoncritchleyandrobertbernasconiLOCKEEditedbyverechappellLOCKE’S‘ESSAYCONCERNINGHUMANUNDERSTANDING’EditedbylexnewmanLOGICALEMPIRICISMEditedbyalanrichardsonandthomasuebelMAIMONIDESEditedbykennethseeskinMALEBRANCHEEditedbystevennadlerMARXEditedbyterrellcarverMEDIEVALJEWISHPHILOSOPHYEditedbydanielh.frankandoliverleamanMEDIEVALPHILOSOPHYEditedbya.s.mcgradeMERLEAU-PONTYEditedbytaylorcarmanandmarkb.n.hansenMILLEditedbyjohnskorupskiMONTAIGNEEditedbyullrichlangerCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nNEWTONEditedbyi.bernardcohenandgeorgee.smithNIETZSCHEEditedbyberndmagnusandkathleenhigginsOCKHAMEditedbypaulvincentspadeTHE‘ORIGINOFSPECIES’Editedbymichaelruseandrobertj.richardsPASCALEditedbynicholashammondPEIRCEEditedbycherylmisakTHEPHILOSOPHYOFBIOLOGYEditedbydavidl.hullandmichaelrusePLATOEditedbyrichardkrautPLATO’S‘REPUBLIC’Editedbyg.r.f.ferrariPLOTINUSEditedbylloydp.gersonQUINEEditedbyrogerf.gibsonjr.RAWLSEditedbysamuelfreemanRENAISSANCEPHILOSOPHYEditedbyjameshankinsTHOMASREIDEditedbyterencecuneoandren´evanwoudenbergROUSSEAUEditedbypatrickrileyBERTRANDRUSSELLEditedbynicholasgriffinSARTREEditedbychristinahowellsSCHOPENHAUEREditedbychristopherjanawayTHESCOTTISHENLIGHTENMENTEditedbyalexanderbroadieADAMSMITHEditedbyknudhaakonssenSPINOZAEditedbydongarrettTHESTOICSEditedbybradinwoodTOCQUEVILLEEditedbycherylb.welchWITTGENSTEINEditedbyhansslugaanddavidsternCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nTheCambridgeCompaniontoDARWINsecondeditionEditedbyJonathanHodgeUniversityofLeedsandGregoryRadickUniversityofLeedsCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\ncambridgeuniversitypressCambridge,NewYork,Melbourne,Madrid,CapeTown,Singapore,SaoPaulo,Delhi˜CambridgeUniversityPressTheEdinburghBuilding,Cambridge,cb28ru,UKPublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyCambridgeUniversityPress,NewYorkwww.cambridge.orgInformationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9780521711845CCambridgeUniversityPress2009Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.Firstpublished2009PrintedintheUnitedKingdomattheUniversityPress,CambridgeAcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibraryLibraryofCongressCataloguinginPublicationdataTheCambridgecompaniontoDarwin/editedbyJonathanHodgeandGregoryRadick.–2nded.p.cm.Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.isbn978-0-521-88475-41.Darwin,Charles,1809–1882.I.Hodge,M.J.S.(MichaelJonathanSessions),1940–II.Radick,Gregory.qh31.d2c1852009576.8092–dc222008038888isbn978-0-521-88475-4hardbackisbn978-0-521-71184-5paperbackCambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication,anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,accurateorappropriate.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\ncontentsListofcontributorspagexPrefacexiiiIntroductionjonathanhodgeandgregoryradick1PARTI:DARWIN’STHEORISING1Themakingofaphilosophicalnaturalistphillipr.sloan212ThenotebookprogrammesandprojectsofDarwin’sLondonyearsjonathanhodge443Darwinongeneration,pangenesisandsexualselectionjimendersby734Darwinonmind,moralsandemotionsrobertj.richards965TheargumentsintheOriginofSpeciesc.kennethwaters120PARTII:HISTORICALCONTEXTS6Isthetheoryofnaturalselectionindependentofitshistory?gregoryradick147viiCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nviiicontents7Darwin’sscienceandVictorianphilosophyofsciencedavidl.hull1738DarwinandVictorianChristianityjohnhedleybrooke1979Darwin,socialDarwinismandeugenicsdianeb.paul21910TheplaceofDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrunjonathanhodgeandgregoryradick246PARTIII:CURRENTISSUES11FromDarwintotodayinevolutionarybiologyjeangayon27712MetaphysicalandepistemologicalissuesinmodernDarwiniantheoryelliottsober30213Darwinianconceptsinthephilosophyofmindkimsterelny32314Darwinisminmoralphilosophyandsocialtheoryalexrosenberg34515BeliefinGodinaDarwinianagemichaelruse368PARTIV:PHILOSOPHICALPROSPECTS16InDarwin’swake,whereamI?danielc.dennett39317Ethicalexpressions:whymoralistsscowl,frownandsmileowenflanagan41318Ishumannaturenatural?simonblackburn435CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nContentsix19GivingDarwinhisduephilipkitcher455Guidetofurtherreading477Listofreferences480Index521CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\ncontributorssimonblackburnisProfessorofPhilosophyattheUniversityofCambridge.HisbooksincludeSpreadingtheWord(1984),RulingPassions(1998),Think(1999),BeingGood(2001)andTruth:AGuideforthePerplexed(2005).johnhedleybrookeisAndreasIdreosProfessorEmeritusofScienceandReligionattheUniversityofOxford.HisbooksincludeScienceandReligion(1991),ThinkingaboutMatter(1995)and,withGeoffreyCantor,ReconstructingNature:TheEngagementofScienceandReligion(1998).danielc.dennettisUniversityProfessorandCo-DirectoroftheCenterforCognitiveStudiesatTuftsUniversity.HisbooksincludeConsciousnessExplained(1991),Darwin’sDangerousIdea(1995),FreedomEvolves(2003)andBreakingtheSpell:ReligionasaNaturalPhenomenon(2006).jimendersbyisLecturerintheHistoryDepartmentattheUniver-sityofSussex.HisbooksincludeAGuineaPig’sHistoryofBiology(2007),ImperialNature:JosephHookerandthePracticesofVicto-rianScience(2008)andanewscholarlyeditionofDarwin’sOriginofSpecies(2009).owenflanaganisJamesB.DukeProfessorofPhilosophyinthePhilosophyDepartmentatDukeUniversity,wherehealsoholdspro-fessorialappointmentsinpsychologyandneurobiology.HisbooksincludeSelf-Expression(1996)andTheReallyHardProblem:Mean-inginaMaterialWorld(2007).xCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofcontributorsxijeangayonisProfessorofPhilosophyandHistoryofLifeSciencesattheUniversityofParis1-PantheonSorbonne.Hisbooksinclude´Darwinism’sStruggleforSurvival:HeredityandtheHypothesisofNaturalSelection(1998)and,aseditor,Buffon88(1992).jonathanhodgeisSeniorFellowinHistoryandPhilosophyofScienceattheUniversityofLeeds.HisbooksincludeOriginsandSpecies(1991)andtwovolumesofpapers,BeforeandAfterDarwin:Origins,Species,CosmogoniesandOntologies(2008)andDarwinStudies:ATheoristandHisTheoriesinTheirContexts(2008).davidl.hullisProfessorEmeritusintheDepartmentofPhilos-ophyatNorthwesternUniversity.HisbooksincludeDarwinandHisCritics(1973),PhilosophyofBiologicalScience(1974),ScienceasaProcess(1988)andScienceandSelection:EssaysonBiologicalEvolutionandthePhilosophyofScience(2001).philipkitcherisJohnDeweyProfessorofPhilosophyintheDe-partmentofPhilosophyatColumbiaUniversity.HisbooksincludeScience,Truth,andDemocracy(2001),InMendel’sMirror:Philo-sophicalReflectionsonBiology(2003)andLivingwithDarwin:Evo-lution,Design,andtheFutureofFaith(2007).dianeb.paulisProfessorEmeritaintheDepartmentofPoliticalScienceattheUniversityofMassachusettsBoston.Herbooksin-cludeControllingHumanHeredity:1865tothePresent(1995)andThePoliticsofHeredity:EssaysonEugenics,Biomedicine,andtheNature-NurtureDebate(1998).gregoryradickisSeniorLecturerinHistoryandPhilosophyofScienceattheUniversityofLeeds.HisbooksincludeTheSimianTongue:TheLongDebateaboutAnimalLanguage(2007)and,asco-editor,Space:InScience,ArtandSociety(2004).robertj.richardsisMorrisFishbeinProfessoroftheHistoryofScienceandMedicineattheUniversityofChicago.HisbooksincludeDarwinismandtheEmergenceofEvolutionaryTheoriesofMindandBehavior(1987)andTheTragicSenseofLife:ErnstHaeckelandtheStruggleoverEvolutionaryThought(2008).CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nxiilistofcontributorsalexrosenbergisR.TaylorColeProfessorofPhilosophyatDukeUniversity,whereheisamemberoftheCenterforPhilosophyofBiology.HisbooksincludeDarwinisminPhilosophy,SocialScienceandPolicy(2000)andDarwinianReductionism,or,HowtoStopWorryingandLoveMolecularBiology(2006).michaelruseisLucyleT.WerkmeisterProfessorofPhilosophyatFloridaStateUniversity.HisbooksincludeCanaDarwinianBeaChristian?TheRelationshipBetweenScienceandReligion(2000),DarwinandDesign:DoesEvolutionHaveaPurpose?(2003)andDarwinismanditsDiscontents(2006).phillipr.sloanisProfessorintheProgramofLiberalStudiesandthePrograminHistoryandPhilosophyofScienceattheUniversityofNotreDame.HismostrecentbookistheeditedvolumeControllingOurDestinies:Historical,Philosophical,Ethical,andTheologicalPerspectivesontheHumanGenomeProject(2000).elliottsoberisHansReichenbachProfessorattheUniversityofWisconsin,Madison.HisbooksincludeTheNatureofSelection(1984),ReconstructingthePast(1988),PhilosophyofBiology(1993),andEvidenceandEvolution:TheLogicBehindtheScience(2008).kimsterelnyhasappointmentsinphilosophyattheAustralianNationalUniversityandVictoriaUniversityinWellington.HisbooksincludeTheEvolutionofAgencyandOtherEssays(2001),DawkinsvsGould:SurvivaloftheFittest(2001)andThoughtinaHostileWorld(2003).c.kennethwatersisJohnDolanProfessorofPhilosophyattheUniversityofMinnesota,wherehedirectstheMinnesotaCenterforPhilosophyofScience.Hismostrecentbookistheco-editedvolumeScientificPluralism(2006).CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nprefaceThisvolumeisaboutthelife,workandintellectuallegaciesofCharlesDarwin.Theaimistoprovideanaccessibleandup-to-dateguidetoDarwinandhisinfluence.AsweexplainmorefullyintheIntroduction,wehavetriedtomeettheneedsandinterestsofawiderangeofreaders.InkeepingwiththeCambridgeCompanionseries,however,theemphasisisonDarwinasathinkerandonDarwinianthemeswithinphilosophy.ItgivesusgreatpleasuretoexpressourwarmestthankstoourowneditoratCambridgeUniversityPress,HilaryGaskin.Wehavebeenindebtedthroughouttoherguidanceandencouragement.Ourgratitudeislikewiseprofoundtothecontributingauthorswhohavejoinedintheprojectandseenitthroughtocompletion.Weappreciateespeciallytheircongenial,expertparticipationandtheirwillingnesstoadapttheirpresentationstothedistinctivedemandsofacollabo-rativevolume.OurthanksgoalsotoJamesSumnerforprovidinganexemplaryindex.Thissecondeditionretainsallofthefirsteditionchapterswhileaddingtwothatarenew:onebySimonBlackburnandonebytheeditors.ChangeshavebeenmadetotheIntroduction,theGuidetoFurtherReadingandtheListofReferences.Somecontributorstothefirsteditionhavetakentheopportunitytoamendtheirtexts.WeareverygratefultoHilaryGaskin,thecontributingauthorsandourassistantChrisRenwickforalltheyhavedonetomakethisrevisedCambridgeCompanionvolumepossibleintheDarwinbicentennialyear.JonathanHodgeandGregoryRadickCentreforHistoryandPhilosophyofScienceDepartmentofPhilosophyUniversityofLeedsxiiiCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\njonathanhodgeandgregoryradickIntroductionidarwinandphilosophySomescientificthinkers,whilenotthemselvesphilosophers,makephilosophersnecessary.CharlesDarwinisanobviouscase.Hiscon-clusionsaboutthehistoryanddiversityoflife–includingtheevo-lutionaryoriginofhumans–haveseemedtobearonfundamentalquestionsaboutbeing,knowledge,virtueandjustice.Arewediffer-entinkindfromotheranimals?Doourapparentlyuniquecapacitiesforlanguage,reasonandmoralitypointtoadivinesparkwithinus,ortoancestralanimallegaciesstillinevidenceinoursimianrela-tives?Whatformsofsociallifearewenaturallydisposedtowards–competitiveandselfishforms,orcooperativeandaltruisticones?OnceweadoptaDarwinianperspective,moreover,howshouldwerespondtosuchvenerabledoctrinesoftheWesterntraditionasAris-totle’sessentialism,Descartes’dualismofbodyandmindandKant’srejectionoftheverypossibilityofanaturalscienceofthemind?TheCambridgeCompaniontoDarwinaimstofacilitateunder-standingofsuchissues.ItprovidesanintroductiontoDarwin’sthinkingandtothevariousandoftencontentioususesmadeofhislegaciestoday.Toservetheseends,thevolumedepartssomewhatfromtheprecedentsofearliervolumesinthisseries.Thechapterscomeinfourclusters,twobroadlyhistoricalandtwobroadlyphilo-sophical.ThefirstclusterconcernsDarwin’stheorising,beginningwithachapteronhowtheyoungDarwinacquiredhisdistinctivescientificoutlookandpreoccupations(PhillipSloan)andconclud-ingwithananalysisoftheargumentsofthemostimportantbookofDarwin’smaturity,OntheOriginofSpecies(KennethWaters).Inbetweenarechaptersreconstructingtheextraordinarilywide-1CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n2jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickrangingtheorisingrecordedintheprivatenotebooksthatDarwinkeptinthelate1830s(JonathanHodge),followedbychapterstrack-ingparticularelementsofthattheorisingoverthewholeofDarwin’slife:generation,pangenesisandsexualselection(JimEndersby);andmind,moralsandemotions(RobertRichards).Themiddlechaptersofthisfirstpartcollectivelyserve,wehope,tocorrecttreatmentsofDarwin’sideasonsexandmindaslate,moreorlessexpendable–and,inthecaseofpangenesis,regrettable–additionstothemainDarwiniancorpus.UnderstandingDarwin’stheoriesasDarwinunderstoodthemmeanstakingseriouslyallthatDarwintookseri-ously,unfamiliarandevenuncomfortableastheenterprisemightsometimesbe.ThesecondclusterofchaptersenlargesfocustoexamineaspectsofDarwin’stheorisinginrelationtohissetting,andthereceptionandinfluenceDarwinhadinhisowntime.Thismorecontextu-allyengagedpartofthevolumebeginswithreflectionsontheoldMarxianviewthatthetheoryofnaturalselectionisVictorianindus-trialcapitalismnaturalised(GregoryRadick).ThenexttwochaptersconsiderDarwin’stheorisinginrelationtotwootheraspectsofhisVictorianmatrix,itsdebatesabouttherequirementsofsoundsci-ence(DavidHull)andtherequirementsofsoundChristianity(JohnBrooke).Darwinianenthusiastsinscienceandphilosophysome-timesappeardefensiveandevasiveaboutcertainaspectsofthelargerDarwinstory,mostobviouslythehistoricalconnectionsbetweenDarwin’swritingsandvariouspoliticalandsocialdoctrines–Nazismistheparadigm,ofcourse–thatinvokedDarwinisminsupportoftheirabsurditiesandatrocities.Forthepurposesofthepresentvol-ume,ithasseemedappropriatetoincluderatherthanexcludetheseconnections,examinedhereinachapteronDarwin,socialDarwin-ismandeugenics(DianePaul).Thissecondpartofthevolumecon-cludeswithachapter,newtothissecondedition,whichsketchesnewdirectionsforunderstandingtheplaceofDarwin’stheorisingwithinthelongueduree´ofWesternintellectualtraditions(JonathanHodgeandGregoryRadick).PhilosophicalresponsestoDarwinnowareasmuchtoDarwinianthemesinpresent-dayscienceastoDarwin’sownwork.Accordingly,thethirdclusterofchapters,onissuesdebatedamongphilosopherscurrentlyconcernedwithDarwin’slegacy,beginswithanoverviewofchangesinevolutionarybiologybetweenDarwin’stimeandoursCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIntroduction3(JeanGayon).Thechapterthatfollows,onmetaphysicalandepiste-mologicalissuesarisingwithincontemporaryevolutionarybiology(ElliottSober),inturnsetsthestageforasequenceofchaptersonhowresourcesfromthatsciencearebeingtakenupwithinpartic-ularbranchesofphilosophy.Inphilosophyofmind,aDarwinianperspectivehasseemedtohelpwithsomeproblemsbutnotwithothers–indeed,tohavemadesomeproblemsevenmorechallenging(KimSterelny).SimilarlymixedviewsaboutDarwinism’sinfluencearereportedfromtheresearchfrontsinmoralphilosophyandsocialtheory(AlexRosenberg)andphilosophyofreligion(MichaelRuse).Althoughthesechaptersdonotholdbackfrompassingjudgmentonthecurrentphilosophicalscene,theyaimtoprovidesurveysofthestateofdiscussionwithintherelevantcommunities.Thechaptersinthefourthandfinalcluster,bycontrast,arede-liberately,unrestrainedlypersonalviewsofwheresuchdiscussionmightbedirected.Thispartofthevolumeoffersexamplesofphiloso-phersmakinguptheirminds‘live’–andnotalwaysagreeingwitheachother–overDarwinianalignmentsforphilosophicalenquiriesinthefuture.DanielDennetturgesamorethoroughlyDarwinianinterpretationofhumancreativity,suggestinghowrecentachieve-mentsinartificialintelligencecanhelpusunderstandevenourmostimpressivementalprocessesasthemechanicalprocessestheymust,fortheDennettianDarwinian,be.OwenFlanagandrawsonrecentstudiesintheevolutionaryanthropologyofemotionalexpressiontosketchasynthesisofopposing‘cognitivist’and‘non-cognitivist’sidesinalongstandingdebateinmetaethics.SimonBlackburn,inachapternewtothissecondedition,teasesoutthemultipleaffini-tiesbetweenDarwin’sthoughtandthatofthegreatpatronofnon-cognitivisminmoralphilosophy,DavidHume.AndPhilipKitcherclosesthevolumewithreflectionsonhow,inhisownthinkingacrossthephilosophicalboard,Darwinianperspectiveshaveenabledinsightswithout,however,providingalltheanswers.Thisarrayofchaptersdoes,wehope,provideabalancebetweenthemoreenduringandthemoreephemeralthemesinDarwiniandiscussionsthroughthedecades.Itprovides,too,formutualillumi-nationbetweenolderandnewerversionsoftheenduringthemes.So,forexample,thereaderwillfindRobertRichardsonhowDarwindealtwithemotionsandethics,togetherwithOwenFlanaganonhowrecentDarwinianstudiesoftheemotionsclarifythemeaningCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n4jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickofethicalstatements.JohnBrooketellsofDarwinismandtheismintheVictoriancontext,andMichaelRuseofDarwinismandtheismtoday.DianePaullooksattherelationsbetweenDarwinismandtheoldeugenics,whilePhilipKitcheraskswhetherDarwinismcanhelpusfindamoralpaththroughtheneweugenics.Thiscompanionaspires,then,tobeintroductoryandsynoptic,suitedtoanyreader,whetherphilosopherornot,whoisinterestedinDarwin.Nevertheless,thevolumeisspeciallyadaptedtothedis-tinctiveconcernsofphilosophers.Theemphasisthroughoutisonconcepts,contextsandcontroversies.Assuch,thevolumecannotpretendtoomniscience.Nordoesitpresentauthoritativeconsen-sus.Onthehistoricalside,therearedivergencesbetweenthosewhoseeDarwinasaRomantic,andthosewhoseehim,atleastasmuch,asachildoftheEnlightenment.Onthephilosophicalside,therearesomewhoseelimitstowhatphilosophycangainfromDarwinianresources,andotherswhoseenolimitswhatsoever.iidarwin,thetreeoflifeandnaturalselectionAsanintroductiontothefirsttwoclustersofchapters,itwillbeappropriateheretosketchtheshapeofDarwin’slifeandwork.BorninEnglandin1809,Darwinhadaprivileged,private,localschooling.Hisfatherwasanexceptionallywealthyandunusuallyfree-thinkingdoctor,aprominentfigureinthetownofShrewsbury,countyseatofShropshire,somehundredandfiftymilesnorthandwestofLondon.Darwin’sschoolingwasfollowedbyfiveyearsatuniversity:twoyears’traininginmedicineatEdinburghUniversity;then,afterachangeofambition,threeyearsatCambridgeUniversity,studyingthatmixofsubjects,mainlygeometry,theologyandclassicalliterature,whichthenpreparedoneforacareerintheAnglicanchurch.NextcamefiveyearsgoingroundtheworldasanaturalistonHMSBeagle.Returningin1836,Darwin–nolongerwantingtobeaclergymanandinanycasetoowellofftoneedtowork–livedforfiveyearsinLondon,where,inaseriesofnotebooks,hedevelopedal-mostallthetheoreticalinsightshewouldlaterpublishovertherestofhislife.Finally,from1842untilhisdeathin1882,DarwinlivedinaKentishvillagesomesixteenmilessouthandeastofLondon.FormanyyearshedidnotgointoprintwithwhatwouldbehismostCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIntroduction5famous,evennotorioustheory,thetheoryoftheoriginofspeciesbymeansofnaturalselection.In1858,thebiogeographerandspec-imencollectorAlfredRusselWallacesentDarwinanunpublishedsketchofaverysimilartheory.Darwinthenpreparedanabstractofthebigbookhewasstillintheprocessofwriting.TheabstractappearedasOntheOriginofSpecies,publishedinNovember1859,whileDarwinwashidingfromthepublicinIlkley,aspatownintheWestRidingofYorkshire.TheOriginexpoundsDarwin’sgeneralaccountofwhatwouldsoonbecalledorganicorbiologicalevolution.Almostallofhissub-sequent,morespecialisedstudies,suchasTheVariationofAnimalsandPlantsunderDomestication(1868)andTheDescentofMan,andSelectioninRelationtoSex(1871),canbereadasamplificationsorapplicationsoftheOrigin’stwomainproposals.Thefirstwasthatallthespeciesthathaveeverlivedonearthmayformasingletreeoflife.Anygroupofsimilarspecies–thegullspecies,say–isdescended,inirregularlybranchingdivergences,fromasingle,commonancestralspecies;and,further,allthebirdspecieslikewisearedescendedfromamoreremotesingleancestralstock.Indeed,allanimalandplantspeciesmayshareacommonancestrywhentracedbacksufficientlyfarintime.Thesecondproposalwasthatnaturalselectionhasbeenthemaincauseoragencyresponsibleforallthisdivergent,adaptiveandprogressivechangefromancestraltodescendentspecies:diver-gentinthatmanyverydifferentspeciesoftendescendfromasingleancestralone;adaptiveinthat,inthecourseofdivergence,theducks,say,havebeenfittedtodivingandthehawkstoswoopingfortheirfood;progressiveinthatadaptationhasgenerallyentailedspeciali-sation,sothathigheranimalshavemorespecialisedparts–mouthpartsandlocomotivelimbswheretheiroldestancestorsabsorbednutrientsandmovedthemselveswiththeirwholebodies.Darwincallednaturalselectionbythatnametoindicateananal-ogywiththeselectivebreedingbyhumansofdomesticatedanimalsandplants,orartificialselection.Thisanalogy,builtupoverthefirstfourchaptersoftheOrigin,deservesspecialattention,astherestofthebookamountstoaseriesofdefencesandapplicationsofit.Roughlyspeaking,thefirstchapter,on‘variationunderdomesti-cation’,hastwohalves.(PagereferencesinwhatfollowsaretothefirsteditionoftheOrigin.)Inthefirsthalf(7–29),Darwinarguesthat,whenhumansdomesticateaspecies,newconditionsoflifeareCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n6jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickimposeduponthatspecies,causingmuchnewinheritablevariation.Inthesecondhalf(29–43),Darwinshowshowhumanbreedershavetakenadvantageofthisinheritablevariation,selectingforbreeding,oversuccessivegenerations,thoseorganismsthathappentovaryindesirabledirections.Thoughtheindividualvariationsareslight–colouringslightlydeeper,racingspeedslightlyfaster,andsoon–theirgradualaccumulationeventuallyresultsinnewvarieties,morecloselymatchedtohumanneedsanddesires.Thenextchaptersshifttheargumentfromdomesticatedplantandanimalbreedingtonature.Thetopicsofinheritablevariationanditsselectiveaccumulationarenowdealtwithseparately.Inthesecondchapter,on‘variationundernature’,Darwinarguesthat,innaturetoo,therearechangingconditionsandhencevariation,butthevari-ationsaremuchlessplentifulthanonthefarm.Inthethirdchapter,onthe‘struggleforexistence’,hearguesthat,duetocompetitivestruggle,inheritablevariationaccumulatesselectivelyinnaturetoo,butwiththeresultthat,overlongstretchesoftime,muchgreaterchangescanbeachievedthanonthefarm.Forthemodernreader,oneofthesefarm-to-naturemovesiseasiertoassimilatethantheother.TextbookversionsofDarwiniantheorystilloftenincludesomethingaboutthesmallselectionalachieve-mentsofthestockbreederincomparisonwiththelargeroutcomesoffitnessdifferencesinnature.MuchhardertounderstandnowadaysiswhyDarwinfussesovertheeffectsofdomesticationonvariationversustheeffectsofnaturalenvironmentalchangesonvariation.Evenlesscomprehensible,fromthepointofviewofthepresent,iswhyDarwinassumesvariationunderdomesticationtobemoreextensivethanvariationundernature.Hereweneedtotakeaccountofsomebygonebiology.Unlikebi-ologiststoday,andindeedunlikesomebiologicalthinkersatthetime,Darwinbelievedthatvariationwastheexception,nottherule(43).Otherthingsbeingequal,offspringresembletheirparents.InDarwin’sview,whenoffspringdonotresembletheirparents,itisbecausetheparents’reproductivesystemshavesufferedsomesortofdisturbance,duetochangesintheconditionsoflife.HowchangedconditionsdisturbreproductivefunctioningDarwindoesnotclaimtoknow–thoughheispreparedtoconjecturethatithassomethingtodowithnutrition(7).But,heargues,oncereproductivefunctioninghasbeenthusdisturbed,then,ifviableoffspringcanCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIntroduction7beproducedatall,theywillvary.Ifconditionsremainunstable(asunderdomestication),thisvariabilitywillcontinueforgenerationstocome.Atleastsomeofthevariationswillbe,orwillbecome,hereditary.Astowhyanorganismvariesinonewayratherthananother–atopictreatedatlengthinthefifthchapter–Darwinarguesthatanumberofcausescomeintoplay,includinginheritance,reversiontoancestralcharacters,theeffectsofuseanddisuse,andthedirectactionoftheenvironment.FromDarwin’sperspective,domesticationisanextremeandsustainedchangeinaspecies’conditionsoflife.Thechallengehefeelsisthustoshowthatinnaturetoo,albeitonasmallerscale,changedconditionshavecausedvariation.Thesecondchaptertakesupthischallenge.HereDarwinattemptstoshowthat,whilevariationislessextensiveinnaturethanonthefarm,neverthelessitismoreextensivethanmanynaturalistsatthetimesuspected.Heattributestheunderestimateofvariationinnatureinparttothefactthattaxonomists,devotedtodescribingtheessentialfeaturesofspecies,‘arefarfrompleasedatfindingvariabilityinimportantcharacters’(45).Especiallysignificant,inhisview,isthatsuchnaturalvariationismostabundantingroupscontaininglargenumbersofspecies,exposedtothegreatestrangeofconditionsoflife.Variabilitypersistswhereithasprevailedinthepast.Hencespeciesbelongingtolargergeneratendtohavemorevarietiesthanspeciesbelongingtosmallergenera–apatternutterlymysteriousontheviewthatspeciesaretheproductsofisolatedactsofcreation.ForDarwin,varietiesarebut‘incipientspecies’(52),whilespeciesarebut‘strongly-markedandwell-definedvarieties’(55).Furthermore,asDarwinargueslater,since‘geologyplainlyproclaimsthateachlandhasundergonegreatphysicalchanges’,organismsinthepastmustindeedhaveexperiencedchangedconditionsoflife,andasaresult‘variedundernature,inthesamewayastheygen-erallyhavevariedunderthechangedconditionsofdomestication’(468).Inthethirdchapter,Darwinidentifiesthestruggleforexistenceaswhatensuresthatinheritablevariationinnatureaccumulatesselectivelyandsoadaptively.AccordingtoDarwin,citingtheprece-dentofthepoliticaleconomistThomasRobertMalthus,thereisanaturaltendencyforeachspeciestoincreaseinnumbergeomet-rically.Buttherearealsomanychecksonthistendency,suchasCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n8jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickfoodscarcity,predation,unfavourablechangesinclimate,diseaseandcompetitionwithotherspecies.Asaresult,thereisastrug-gle,moreandlessmetaphorical,tosurviveandreproduce.Darwinemphasiseshowdenseistheeconomyofnature,witheachspeciestendingtoexpandtotheutmost,attheexpenseofotherspecies.Hecomparesthe‘faceofNature’to‘ayieldingsurface,withtenthou-sandsharpwedgespackedclosetogether’(67)–thatis,eachorganismandspeciescompetestodriveitselfasfullyaspossibleintotheenvi-ronment,exploitingresourcesandsoincreasinginnumbers.Amongtheintense,complexandinterlockingrelationshipsrelatingorgan-ismstooneanotherandtheirenvironmentalconditions,itistheorganism-to-organismrelationshipsthatmattermost.Competitionbetweenindividualsthataremostalikewillbestrongest.Atthebeginningofthethirdchapter,Darwinindicatesbrieflyhowinheritablevariationandthestruggleforexistencecombinetoadaptspeciestotheirenvironments:Owingtothisstruggleforlife,anyvariation,howeverslightandfromwhat-evercauseproceeding,ifitbeinanydegreeprofitabletoanindividualofanyspecies,initsinfinitelycomplexrelationstootherorganicbeingsandtoexternalnature,willtendtothepreservationofthatindividual,andwillgenerallybeinheritedbyitsoffspring....Ihavecalledthisprinciple,bywhicheachslightvariation,ifuseful,ispreserved,bythetermofNaturalSelection,inordertomarkitsrelationtoman’spowerofselection.(61)Darwindiscussestheprinciplemorefullyinthefourthchapter,on‘naturalselection’.Themaincontributionsofthischapteraretwofold.First,Darwinsystematicallycomparesartificialwithnat-uralselection,arguingforthegreaterpowerofthelattertomodifyspecies.Overcenturies,humanbreedershavediversifiedandadapteddistinctivebreedsofdomesticatedspecies.Naturehasmillionsofyearstowork,andismorepreciseandmorecomprehensiveasaselector,discriminatingbetweenthesmallestdifferences.AsDarwin’sanalogicalreasoningsherehavelongbeencontrover-sial,itisworthwhilesettingouthisunderstandingofhowtherele-vantcomparisonsandcontrastsworkedtogether.Thecomparisonsmadebetweennaturalandartificialselectionaresometimesrela-tional,sometimesintrinsic.Glovesandsocksarerelationallyalike,gloveshavingthesamerelationtohandsthatsockshavetofeet.Aredbrickandaredfruitareintrinsicallyalikeincolour.ForDarwin,CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIntroduction9naturalselectionhasthesamecausalrelationtowildspeciesfor-mationasartificialselectionhastodomesticbreed-making.Whatismore,thisproportionalternates,asphilosopherssay;sonaturalselectionistoartificialselectionaswildspeciesformationistodo-mesticbreedmaking.Noneoftheseproportionalitiesentailsorpre-supposesanyintrinsicsimilaritiesbetweenthetwoprocesses;andsoDarwingivesindependentreasonsfornaturalselection’sbeingthesamekindofcausalprocessasartificialselection.ForDarwin,then,naturalselectionisintrinsicallylikeartificialselection,butverydifferentindegree,becausesomuchmoreprolonged,exactandall-encompassinginitsselectiveactions.Healsogivesindependentreasonsforwildspeciesformationbeingalikeinkindbutdifferentindegreefromdomesticraceformation.Inaccordwiththesematchingcontrastsindegree,thegreatercausalpower,naturalselection,isca-pable,heargues,ofthoseproportionallygreatereffects:wildspeciesformations.AcompleteaccountofDarwin’sanalogicalreasoningsaboutselection,naturalandartificial,requires,therefore,anappre-ciationofthecomparisonsandcontrastshewasmakingbetweenthesecausesandbetweentheseeffects:relationalandintrinsiccom-parisonsandcontrasts,andcomparisonsandcontrastsinkindandindegree.Second,havingmadehiscasefortheexistenceandpowersofnat-uralselection,Darwinnextrelatesnaturalselectiontothebranchingtreeoflife,viaextinctionandtheprincipleof‘divergenceofchar-acter’(111).ForDarwin,extinctionisaninevitableconsequenceofeverbetteradaptedvarietiesorspeciesarisingthroughnaturalse-lection.Sincenatureisatalltimesfullyinhabited,newkindsofor-ganismscanemergeonlybydisplacingpre-existingones.Andsincecompetitivestruggleisoftenmostintensebetweensimilarkindsoforganisms,anemergingvarietyorspecieswilloftendrivetorar-ityandthenextinctionthosevarietiesorspeciesnearesttoitinstructure,constitutionandhabits.Atthesametime,themorethedescendantsofacommonancestralspeciesdivergefromoneanotherintheserespects,‘bysomuchwilltheybebetterenabledtoseizeonmanyandwidelydiversifiedplacesinthepolityofnature,andsobeenabledtoincreaseinnumbers’(112).Darwingoesontocom-parethediversificationofspeciesinaregiontothespecialisationoforgansinabody.Justasagreater‘physiologicaldivisionoflabour’(115)bringsmoreefficientfunctioning,so,Darwinargues,agreaterCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n10jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickdiversificationofspeciesenablesaregiontosupportlargernumbersoforganisms.InlatereditionsoftheOrigin,Darwinaddedasectiontothischapterentitled‘OntheDegreetowhichOrganisationTendstoAdvance’.Herehedealswithanapparentdifficultyfortheclaimthatnaturalselectionproducesprogressivechange.Iftheclaimistrue,whyaretherestillsomanyunspecialisedorganismsaround?Darwin’sanswer,ineffect,isthatnaturalselectionproducesgreaterspecialisationotherthingsbeingequal–andotherthingsarenotal-waysequal.Toincreasespecialisationor,inDarwin’sterms,advanceorganisation,naturalselectionrequiresbothsuitablevariationandpropitiousconditionsoflife.Butsometimesmorehighlyorganisedvariantssimplydonotariseinaparticularlineage.Evenwhentheydoarise,loworganisationissometimesmoreadaptivethanhighorganisation.ThereisofcoursemoretoDarwin’sargumentsinthesechap-ters.InKennethWaters’analysisofthereasoningintheOrigin,heexploresindetailhowtheanalogybetweenartificialandnaturalse-lectionworks,andhowitrelates,ordoesnot,totherestofthebook.ButeventhissketchwillsufficetoexplainwhyDarwin’stheorisingwascontroversialandconsequential–especiallywhenextendedtothecaseofourownspecies.iiidarwinastheoristandmanofideasLarge,evenideological,disagreementshaveledtodifferencesovertheinterpretationofDarwin’slifeandwork.Andthedetailedre-sultsofspecialistscholarshipdonotalwaysresolvetheresultingcontroversies.Thisvolumedoesnotriseabovethesecontroversies.Ononeissue,especially,ittakessides.Darwinisoftenportrayedasanaıve,innocent,school-boyish,outdoor,nature-lovingtraveller¨andcollector,whosetheoriesemergedfromluckymeetingsofhisgeniuswithexceptionalobservationalopportunities.ThisDarwinwasanaturalist,amanofscience,butnotamanofideas,not–topickaprovocativeanachronism–anintellectual,athinkerjoin-inginthelarger,collectivelifeofthemindoftheage.Follow-ingDarwin’sownlead,hisfamilyhaveoftenperpetuatedthispor-trayal.ItfitswellwithaWordsworthianstraininEnglish(butnotScottish)nationalpreferencesforcertainkindsofculturalheroes;andCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIntroduction11itfits,too,withacurrenttrendinthehistoriographyofscience:theculturalmaterialismthatdemotestheorytomakebodilypracticesprimary.Theseolderandnewerpresumptionsarewellworthcountering.Fordespitedivergencesonmanyissues,Darwinscholarsarenowagreedthatallsuchinterpretationscanonlymislead.Darwinwasindeedamanofideas,athinker,evenattimes,yes,aphilosopherinoursenseandnotjustintheoldersenseofamanofscience(‘philos’inthatoldersensebeinghisnicknameontheBeagle).Whatismore,forDarwinandmanyothers,theorisingwasaprimebodilypractice,onedonewiththebrain.So–andthisbearsdirectlyonthisvolume–thereisnoparadoxabouthowsomeonepresumedtobesoatoddswithourstandardnotionsofaphilosophercouldneverthelessleavewritingsthathaveintriguedmanyphilosophers.TolosethisparadoxistoloseaniconicstereotypeofDarwin,longcherishedinscientificandliterarycircles;butthestereotypeisaninterpretationwithnoclaimonimmunityfromrevision.Onesourceofthisstereotypecanintroducetherevisionistchal-lengesanyintellectualbiographyofthisintellectualwouldhavetoengage.ForDarwinhasoftenbeenassimilatedtothe‘Anglicanparson-naturalist’traditionexemplifiedintheeighteenthcenturybyGilbertWhiteofSelborne.TheassimilationmakesdecisiveDarwin’sundergraduatelifeatCambridge,where,asatOxford,onlyAnglicanclericscouldbeprofessors,anditprivilegeshismentorthere,theReverendJohnHenslow,placingthismentorinthistradition.Theassimilationfails,however,fortworeasons.First,Henslowinhisearlygeology,asinhisbotany,wasfarfromthattradition,workingashewasatimportingtoCambridgethescienceofsuchFrenchsa-vantsasGeorgesCuvierandAugustindeCandolle.Second,beforeDarwinwasatCambridgehehadbeenenduringlyinfluencedbyEdinburghnaturalistswhowereoftennotclericsbutmedics,and–inRobertGrant’scaseespecially–oftenalliedwithotherFrenchsavantswhowerealientoAnglicannaturalists.Eventhesebriefremarkscanshowthatacomprehensiveandcriti-calunderstandingoftheyoungDarwin’smanymentorscanconfirm,asPhillipSloan’schapterheredoes,thataconcernwithgeneralthe-orywasintrinsictohischaracterasanapprenticemanofscienceevenbeforeheboardedtheBeagle;andthatthisconcernwasen-hancedbyhisreading,reflectingandwritingofthefivevoyageyearsCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n12jonathanhodgeandgregoryradicknolessthanbythedecadesthereafter.Forhisfamily,andthenhisEdinburghandCambridgementors,hadnurturednotonlyhispracti-calskillsbuttheintellectualambitionssoontobenourishedbysuchexponentsofhightheoryasAlexandervonHumboldt,JohnHerschelandCharlesLyell.ThepresenceamongDarwin’searlymentorsofHumboldtandHerschelcankeepusfromidentifyingDarwin,asanintellectual,tooexclusivelywiththetheoryofnaturalselectionaspresentedintheOrigin.Thenotebooksofthelate1830sareinvaluableforthesamereason.Forthethreeseriesofnotebookswereexplicitlydevotedtothreedomains:theearth,lifeandmind;andallthreedomainsstayinplayfortherestofDarwin’scareer.Oneachofthesethree,moreover,Darwinconsistentlyconcernedhimselfwiththemostgeneralandabstractissuesoftheday.HecommittedhimselftotheconsensushefoundbetweenLyellandHerschel(anastronomerandphysicist,notgeologistassuch)onhowgeologycouldbebothinductiveandsystematicallytheoreticalasascience.IndoingsoDarwinbecametheonlyprominentgeologistevertoembracefullyLyell’scontro-versialteachingsonthisquestion.Darwin’sinquiriesintothe‘lawsoflife’weregroundedinpersistentcomparingandcontrastingofsexualandasexualreproduction,ofindividualandcolonial(or‘as-sociated’)life,andofdurationallylimitedandunlimitedlife.Whenrelatinghumanandanimalreason,instinct,habit,willandemotiontoconsciousandunconsciousmentalactivity,hecameoutagainstLocke’srejectionofinnateideas,favouredHume’sassociationisminsomecontexts,learnedfrombutthendisagreedwithPaley’sandothers’utilitarianethics,whilecommittinghimselftomaterial-ismanddeterminisminunderstandingrelationsbetweenmindandbrain.Suchswiftsamplingsoftherange,self-awarenessandabstractcharacterofDarwin’stheorisingabouttheearth,lifeandmindshowthat,althoughnotcanonicallyaphilosopher,hewasleadingthekindofintellectuallifethatcallsforthekindofintellectualbiographythatisappropriatetoaDescartes,ad’Alembert,aFreudoraChom-sky.Whatismore,anintellectual-biographicaltaskofthiskindwouldhavetoincludetypingsandplacingsforDarwin’sthought.HerecomplexitiesaboundthankstothepluralityanddiversityofDarwin’steachers,sourcesandconvictions.AsRobertRichardsar-guesinhischapterhere,insofarandaslongasDarwinwasbeingCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIntroduction13inspiredbyHumboldtianprecedentsaboveallothers,itisnaturaltolinkhimtoearlyGermanRomanticism.However,asLyell’sfol-lower,DarwincanbeseenasdescendingnolessdirectlyfromthelateScottishEnlightenment.IfoneconcentratesonsomechaptersoftheOrigin,thenDarwinseemstobepractisingwhatWilliamWhewellhadpreachedinhisphilosophyofconsilientinductions;whileifonetakesinthe‘onelongargument’ofthebookasawhole,heseemstobefollowingtheveryteachingsofHerschelandLyellontruecauses(veraecausae)thatWhewell’sviewsweredesignedtoreplace.IfonefocusesonDarwin’srelatingofstructuretofunctioninorchids,thenheseemstotakeorganismstobelikeman-madema-chines;butwhenwritingofnaturegenerallyheappearstoavoidtheeighteenth-centurychoicebetweenasoul-lessclockorananimatedorganismasthebestmodelfortheworldasawhole;representingna-ture,rather,asanarrayofEnglishlandedestates,sitesfordivergentselectivebreedings,orasawildversion–sceneofcolonialinva-sionsandconquests,nativedefeatsandextinctions–oftheBritishEmpire,itselfconceived,perhaps,asthelargestEnglishlandedestateofall.FacedwithallthesecomplexitiesinrelatingallofDarwin’sthink-ingtoitsmanyimmediatecontextsandantecedents,itistemptingtoseeksimplicityinsynopticthesesabouttheverylongrunfroman-cienttomoderntimes.CanDarwin’sthoughtnot,afterall,beiden-tified,ultimately,asscience’sfinal,triumphantconfrontationwiththeHebrewcosmogonyofGenesisorwiththeGreekcosmogony,Plato’sTimaeus,mostcongenialtonearlytwomillenniaofJewish,ChristianandIslamicmonotheism?Notsurprisingly,thechaptersinthepresentvolumethataddressthisquestiondonotaidandabetsuchsearchesforhistoricalandphilosophicalsimplicity,anymorethantheyencourageattemptstoreduceallDarwin’sthinkingtosomesingleachievementorprogrammaticprospect.ivfromphilosophicalnaturalhistorytophilosophicalnaturalismDarwinthoughtofhimselfasa‘philosophicalnaturalist’;as,thatis,ascientificstudentofnaturalhistory–ofgeology,botanyandzoology–wherebeingscientificmeantbeingconcernedwithgen-eralcausalandexplanatorytheories,andnotmerelywithobserving,CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n14jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickcollecting,describingandclassifying.Inourday,manyphilosophersareengagedinagreeinganddisagreeingwithapositionknownas‘philosophicalnaturalism’.ThisvolumeconcludeswithaquartetofchaptersbyDanielDennett,OwenFlanagan,SimonBlackburnandPhilipKitcher,contributing–notalwaysconsensually–tocurrentdebatesoverrolesforDarwinianresourcesinthefutureofphilo-sophicalnaturalism.ThelinksbetweenphilosophicalnaturalhistoryinDarwin’sgenerationandphilosophicalnaturalisminoursaresometimesstraightforward,sometimesnot.SomescientifictheoriesproposedinDarwin’sgenerationmadereferencetoasupernaturalrealm–forex-ample,thosetheoriesinterpretingtheunityofstructureinthebodyplansofvertebratesasgroundedinaformalarchetypethatwasitselfanideainGod’smind.Darwin’stheories,mostobviouslyhistheoryofdescentwithmodificationbymeansofnaturalselection,madenosuchovertreferencestothesupernatural.Inthatsense,histheories,likeothersoftheday,werenaturalisticratherthansupernatural-istic.Today’sphilosophicalnaturalismcontinuesandextendssuchsubsumingsofphenomenawithinnature–forexample,byattempt-ingtotracehumanethicalvalues,nottoaDivineWill,buttohumanevolution.ThenewphilosophicalnaturalistshaveotheraimsthatdonotmapatallstraightforwardlyontoDarwin’saims,however.Philoso-phersofagenerationortwoback,especiallyintheAnglophoneworld,oftencontrastedthenaturalscienceswith,ononeside,theformalsciencesoflogicandmathematics,and,ontheotherside,ethics.Itwassaidthat,wherethenaturalsciencesweredescriptiveandexplanatory,theformalsciencesandethicswereprescriptiveandnormative(althoughitwasusualtodistinguishsharplybetweenthenormativeprinciplesoflogicandthenormsinherentinethicalval-ues).Philosophyitselfwasoftenlocatedwiththeformalsciences,ratherthanwiththenaturalsciences.Moreover,impassablebarrierswereheldtoexistbetweenthenatural-scientificandtheformal,andbetweenthenatural-scientificandtheethical.Philosophicalnaturalismoftendefinesitselfasdoingawaywithsuchbarriers.Itiscommittedtothecontinuity,ifnottheout-rightmerging,ofthenaturalscienceswithallotherkindsofjudge-mentsandthemes,includingthetheoriesofphilosophyitself.Onthemodernphilosophical-naturalistview,therearenoreasonsforCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIntroduction15supposinginadvancethatthefindingsofthenaturalscienceswillproveuselesstootherareasofenquiry.Thenaturalsciencesare,therefore,allowedtoserveassourcesofinsightonanytopicthephilosophermaybeinvestigating,andasresourcesforphilosophyitself.SofarastheserecentissueswerenoneofDarwin’sconcern,hisphilosophicalnaturalhistorywasdistinctfromthenewphilosophi-calnaturalism.Moreover,theattempttosubsumethehumanmindwithinnatureisnowcarriedoutondistinctlypost-Victorianterms.Accordingtoonepopularview,themindistothebodyascomputersoftwareistocomputerhardware.Tohaveamindisthustoberun-ningaprogramme.Ofcourse,comparingpeopletomachineryisanoldstrategyfornaturalisingthemind,for,althoughmachinesareartefacts,theyarenotmysteriousormiraculous.Onceitwasclocksortelephoneexchangesthatprovidedtheleadingcomparisons.Nowitiscomputers.Wecancallthisgeneralsortofnaturalismaboutthemind‘machinism’,andthenewervariety‘computationistmachinism’.Machinismisdistinctfromasecondstrategyfornaturalisingthemind,exemplifiedinDarwin’swork:toinsistthatpeopleareani-mals,andthatthestudyofhumanmindsrightlyfallswithinthebiologicalsciences.Wecancallthis‘biologism’,andtheDarwinianvariety‘Darwinianbiologism’.Formodernphilosophicalnaturalists,someintegrationofthesetwolatter-dayvarietiesofnaturalismaboutthemind,computationistmachinismandDarwinianbiologism,hasoftenseemedirresistible.Inseveralofthelaterchaptersinthisvol-ume,andmostexplicitlyinDanielDennett’schapter,thesuccessofthatintegrationistakenforgranted.ThelegacyofAlanTuring,themid-twentieth-centuryfounderofmoderncomputationalthe-ory,has,itseems,combinedwiththelegacyofCharlesDarwintonaturalisethemindwholly.Canthisberight?ShouldphilosophicalnaturalistsacceptthatitisreallyTuringandDarwinallthewayupandallthewaydowninmattersmental?Twoobservationsinparticularsuggestcaution.Firstofall,computationistmachinism–knowninitsmoreun-qualifiedversionsas‘strongAI’(for‘ArtificialIntelligence’)–isacontroversial,minorityviewinpsychology;whileDarwinianthe-oryenjoysasecureconsensusinbiology.Second,computationistmachinismisitselfablendoftwodoctrines,computationismandCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n16jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickmachinism,which,fromahistoricalvantagepoint,appearillateasenotonlywitheachother,but,infundamentalways,withDarwinianbiologism.Althoughcomputersareatwentieth-centuryinvention,compu-tationismismucholder,descendingfromNewton’scontemporaryLeibniz(and,arguably,moreremotelyfromthePythagoreans).Itholdsthateverythingisrationallyintelligibleonlyinsofarasitinstantiatesmathematicalrulesandratios.AsunderstoodbyLeibnizandhisfollowers,computationismwasexplicitlyhostiletoallversionsofmaterialism.Bycontrast,machinismwasconstructedintheeighteenthcentury,byLaMettrieandothers,asanewmaterialism,opposedtoanythinglikethecomputationistheritage.Forthemachinists,cogitatinghumanswerebutmorecomplexversionsoftheautomatathendelightingFrenchsavants.Seenagainstthisbackground,computationistmachinismisanunpromis-inghybridofdivergentdoctrines.HistoricalawarenesslikewisecastsdoubtontheattempttouniteeitherofthesedoctrineswithDarwinianbiologism.Asiswellknown,Darwinwasamaterialistaboutthemind,believingthattheorganisationofthebraincausedmentalfunctioning.IfwegrantthatDarwinianbiologismfollowsDarwininhismaterialism,thencomputationism,withitsanti-materialistcommitments,looksanunlikelypartner.Machinism,althoughmaterialist,appearsnomorereadilyintegrated,forDarwin’smaterialismwas,again,biologistic–originatingnotwiththemachinistssuchasLaMettrie,butwithmedicalwriterssuchasCabanis,whocomparedthebraintootherlivingorgansratherthannon-livingmachines.Whatsuchconsiderationssuggest,insum,isthatDarwinianbiol-ogismmayfitatbestuneasilywithbothsidesofaresidualdualismincomputationistmachinism,adualismofalgorithmicsoftwareandmechanicalhardware.HarnessingTuringandDarwintogethermay,then,raiseasmanychallengesasitresolves.Theunresolvedchal-lengesincludetakingseriouslyconsciousnessandtheemotions.LikeDarwinhimself,thefirstpsychologistswhodrewonhiswork–mostnotablyWilliamJames–neversegregatedcognitionfromeithercon-sciousawarenessoremotivefeelings.Bycontrast,instrongAI,asinthecognitivepsychologyofthe1960sand1970sasawhole,therewashardlymoreengagementwiththesetwotopicsthantherehadbeenamongthebehaviourists.Recently,however,consciousnessCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIntroduction17andtheemotionshavereturnedascentralconcernsforphilosophersandpsychologists.Inthelightofthesedevelopments,Darwinianagendasfornaturalisingthemindlooknewlyappropriate,evenasDarwin-Turingintegrationsbecomemoredifficult.Weofferthesereflectionsinthespiritofoneofthemainmessagesofthisvolume:thatDarwinismisaproteanphenomenon.TherehasneverbeenasinglebestinterpretationofDarwin’sideasortheirim-plications.Allneworthodoxiesshouldbeexaminedwithscepticismfortifiedbyasenseofhistory.ThiscompaniontoDarwindoesnotthereforeallyitselfwithaclichethathascarriedoverfromthetwen-´tiethintothepresentcentury:that,withMarxismandFreudian-ismdead,butDarwinismaliveandwell,biologicalviewsofhuman-kindremainthesolesurvivingoptions.Amongotherdefects,anysuchviewbegstoomanyquestions:afterall,thereareplentyofprominentphilosophers,andbynownotjustinFrance,whohaverespondedtothesupposeddeathsofMarxismandFreudianismbyturningtoNietzscheratherthanDarwinasanineteenth-centuryancestor.LittleistobegainedfromattemptstosecureprivilegeddominionforDarwinianperspectives.Inofferingasampleofhis-toricalandphilosophicalinterpretationsofDarwinandDarwinism,thisvolumeseeksrathertopromotebetterinformeddebateaboutDarwinandhisinfluence–whatithasbeen,andwhat,inafuturefullofotherphilosophicaloptions,itshouldbe.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nphillipr.sloan1ThemakingofaphilosophicalnaturalistThelawofthesuccessionoftypes,althoughsubjecttosomeremarkableexceptions,mustpossessthehighestin-teresttoeveryphilosophicalnaturalist.1WhenCharlesDarwinpennedtheselinesin1837,hewastwenty-eightyearsold,freshfromtheBeaglevoyage,andaself-described‘philosophicalnaturalist’.Assuch,hewasengagedneitherinnatu-ralhistorynorinnaturalphilosophy.Naturalhistory,inthetraditionoftheSwedishbotanistLinne(Linnaeus),concernedthesystematic´orderingofanimalsandplantsandthediscoveryofnewspecies.Nat-uralphilosophy,inthetraditionofDescartesandNewton,concernedthesearchforgeneralphysicallaws.Darwinwasaligninghimselfwithinvestigatorswhoseworkfelloutsidethesetraditions.Somewereinterestedinacomparativeanatomybasedonidealforms–theso-called‘transcendental’anatomists,suchastheFrenchzoologistEtienneGeoffroySaint-HilaireandhisScottishdiscipleRobertKnox.Others,suchasthegeologistCharlesLyell,wereinterestedinbuild-ingcomprehensivetheoriesabouttheearthanditsinhabitants.2Philosophicalnaturalistsspokeofvarious‘lawsoflife’.Theydebatedtheexistenceoflaws,forexample,saidtorelatetaxo-nomicgroupingsinregularcirculararrangements,asintheso-calledquinariansystem,ortogovernorganicfunctionssuchasthedevel-opmentoftheembryo.Anotherlawunderdiscussionwasthelawofthesuccessionoftypes.Indifferentareasaroundtheworld,itseemed,livingspecieshadreplacedextinctspeciesofthesamekindortype.LivingarmadillosinSouthAmerica,forinstance,hadappar-entlyreplacedthearmadillo-likecreaturesfossilisedintherocksofthatcontinent.Inthe1830s,patternslikethisone,atoncebiological21CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n22phillipr.sloanandgeological,wereattractingattentionfromleadinggeologistsandpalaeontologists.TheyoungDarwinaspiredtodiscoverandexplainsuchpatterns.Combiningtheinterestsofthecomparativeanatomistsandthetheoreticalgeologists,hesoughttointegrategeology,thestudyofthedistributionofplantsandanimals(biogeography),andthecausalanalysisoftheprocessesofbiologicalchange.This‘philosophical’perspectivewasinplacebeforeheformulatedhisevolutionarythe-ory,andprovidedcrucialpreconditionsforitslaterdevelopment.In-deed,whenhewroteinthelate1830saboutthesuccessionoftypes,hehadalreadyfoundthecausalexplanationhewouldsetout,morethantwentyyearslater,intheOriginofSpecies(1859):thatlivingandextinctspeciesoftenbelongtothesametypebecausetheyshareacommonancestry.3iearlyscientificinterestsTheoutlineofDarwin’searlylife,sketchedmanytimes,includingtwicebyhimself,4beginswithhisbirthinShrewsburyinFebruary1809,thefifthofsixchildrenborntoRobertWaringandSusannahWedgwoodDarwin.TheDarwins’worldwasoneofwealthandprivilege,filledwithvisitstofamily,country-houseballsandmatchmaking.Thewealthcamefrombothsidesofthefamily,asdidtheintellectualambienceinwhichDarwingrewup.Fromhisfather,aphysiciantrainedatbothLeidenandEdinburgh,CharlesabsorbedsomethingoftheethosoftheScottishmedicaltradition,inparticularitsphilosophicalmaterialismaboutlifeandmatter.Equallyunorthodoxreligiousandscientificdoctrines,includingthetransmutationofspecies,hadbeenpubliclymanifestinthewritingsofhisfamous–evennotorious–grandfather,thenaturalphilosopherandminorpoetErasmusDarwin.CounterbalancingthesetendencieswereCharles’motherandhisthreeoldersistersMarianne,CarolineandSusan.FromthemDarwinacquiredaUnitariansensibilitythatacknowledgedaCreator,thoughnotthedivinityofJesusChrist.Thesedifferentinfluencesfromthemaleandfemalesidesofhisfamilyhelpeddefinethecomplexrelationhehadtoconventionalreligiontotheendofhislife.Attheageofeight,CharleswasenrolledintheschoolofthelocalUnitarianminister,theReverendGeorgeCase.FollowingthedeathCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nThemakingofaphilosophicalnaturalist23ofhismotherin1817,CharlesboardednearbyattheprestigiousShrewsburySchool,thenunderthedirectionofSamuelButler.Inlaterlife,Darwinrecalledthesevenyearshespentattheschoolwithdisgust,characterisingitsclassicaleducationasthenadirofhisintel-lectualdevelopment.5Nonetheless,itwastherethattheboy’spre-cocityandinterestinscientificsubjectsfirstcametolight.Alwaysapassionatecollector,hewasintroducedtomoresystematicscientificenquirybyhisbrotherErasmusAlvey.FiveyearsolderthanCharles,ErasmushadprecededhimatShrewsburySchool.Aftergraduation,ErasmuspursuedthefamilymedicalprofessionthroughaneweliteroutethatbeganwithadmissiontoChrist’sCollege,Cambridge,andtothenewmedicalcurriculuminstitutedbyJohnHaviland.Aspartofthiscurriculum,ErasmusattendedthechemicallecturesofJamesCumming,whotaughtthenewchemistryofAntoinedeLavoisierandHumphryDavy.ErasmusalsoattendedthemineralogycourseoftheReverendJohnStevensHenslow,latertobecomeCharles’men-tor.WellbeforeCharleshimselfarrivedatCambridge,hethusac-quiredfromitsteachers,throughErasmus,atastefor‘philosophical’pursuits.Together,CharlesandErasmuscreatedtheirownmakeshiftchemistrylaboratoryatShrewsbury,inwhichtheycarriedoutanarrayofchemicalexperimentsduringschoolholidays,replicatingthoseenactedinCumming’slectures.NearlyalloftheveryearliestsurvivingletterstoCharlesareinstructionssentfromCambridgebyErasmus,detailingglasswareandchemicalstobepurchasedinpreparationfortheirjointchemicalenquiries.iistudiesinedinburghFollowinghisowngraduationfromShrewsburySchool,inautumn1825,attheageofsixteen,CharlestravelledwithErasmustoEdinburghtobeginthestudyofmedicineatEdinburghUniver-sitymedicalschool.WhereasErasmuswasattendingEdinburghtocompletetheexternaldegreerequirementsfortheMDinthenewCambridgemedicalcurriculum,theirfatherhaddecided,inCharles’case,toomittheCambridgepreparation,andenrolhimdirectlyinmedicalschool.Roomingtogetherduringthisfirstacademicyear,thebrothersreadwidelyintheliteratureofmedicineandnaturalphilosophy,andweresooncollectingandstudyingthemarinein-vertebratesabundantalongtheshoresofthenearbyFirthofForth.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n24phillipr.sloanThestandardviewoftheseyears,drawnlargelyfromDarwin’sAutobiography,hasemphasisedCharles’disaffectionwithhismed-icalstudies.Butlettersandotherdocumentsfromthetimerevealamuchmorecomplexpicture.Edinburghwas,afterall,stillknownasthe‘AthensoftheNorth’,andwasaplaceofactivecontroversyoverthelatestmedicalandscientificdevelopments,includingthosethatwerefloodinginfromtheContinent.AlthoughCharles(andmanyothers)wereboredwiththefamouslydreadfullecturesofsomeofhisprofessors,therewereseveralfeaturesoftheuniversityenvironmentthatengagedayoungmanwithprecociousscientificinterests.Therewereopportunities,forexample,toadvanceinchemistry;andinthefirstterm,CharlesenrolledinthedemonstrativelecturecourseinchemistrygivenbyThomasHope,successortothechairofchemistryformerlyheldbythegreatJosephBlack.CharlesenjoyedHope’slecturesverymuch.6InHope’slectureshewasalsoexposedtothecontroversialgeologicaltheoriesofEdinburgh’sJamesHutton.7Huttonhadopposedtheso-called‘Neptunist’geologicaltheoriesoftheGermanmineralogistAbrahamWerner.ForHutton,itwasnottheactionofwater,buttheeffectsofheat,thatformedthegeologicalstrata.SuchwashisenthusiasmforHope’slecturesthatCharlesremainedinEdinburghafterErasmus’graduationinspring1826,inordertocompleteHope’ssecondseriesof‘verygoodLecturesonElectricity’,reviewing,amongotherthings,theelectricaltheoriesofCharlesDufayandBenjaminFranklin,andtheresultsofrecentgalvanicexperimentsonorganisms.8InhissecondyearatEdinburgh,Charles’interestsshifteddeci-sivelyawayfrommedicalstudytomoretheoreticalinterestsinnat-uralhistory.Inautumn1826heenrolledintheintensive,five-day-a-weeknaturalhistorylecturesgivenbythechairholderinnaturalhistory,RobertJameson.Fromtheselectures,Charleslearnedaboutsuchmattersasclassification,fossilsandthelocalgeology.AroundthistimehealsometthecomparativeanatomistRobertEdmondGrant,thenworkingasanassistanttoJamesononexcursionswithstudentsalongthebeachesandthenearbyhills–themostproba-blecontextforthemeetingofGrantandtheyoungDarwin.ItwasGrantwhohadintroducedthecontroversialtheoriesoftheFrenchzoologistsGeoffroyandJean-BaptistedeLamarckintoEdinburghdis-cussions.Geoffroy,oneofthemainarchitectsofthe‘Idealist’mor-phology,hadclaimedtofindstructuralaffinities,or‘unityoftype’,CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nThemakingofaphilosophicalnaturalist25betweenkindsofanimalspreviouslyclassifiedasbelongingtowhollyseparatetaxonomicgroups.AccordingtoLamarck,theplantsandanimalspresentlyexistinghadarisenthroughanaturalprocessoftransformation,owingtothecomplexifyingpropertiesofthefluidsrunningthroughtheirtissues,andtheadaptivechangesbroughtaboutwhenhabitschangedinresponsetoalteredenvironments.9BeyondJameson’slecturesandGrant’sconversations,therewasalsothecompanyoflike-mindedstudents.InNovember1826,CharleswaselectedtothestudentPlinianNaturalHistorySociety.SponsoredbyJameson,thisgroupconsistedmostlyofstudentsofmedicine,sometobecomelifelongfriends.Theregularmeetingsimmersedhimindiscussionsofscientifictopicsgenerally,andsome-timesofcontroversialtheoreticalissuesinthelifesciences,suchastherelationsoflifeandinstincttomentalpowers,andtherelationsbetweenasexualpropagationandsexualgeneration.10HereCharlespresentedhisfirstscientificpaper,inMarch1827.Reportingonthemodeofgenerationinasmallcolonialmarineinvertebrate,thebryozoanFlustra,Darwindescribedindetailhismicroscopicstud-iesoftheselowlyforms,inwhichhehadfoundthattheovahadthepropertiesofself-motion.11Darwin’stimeinEdinburghprovedcrucialinseveralrespects.Itwastherethathefirstencounteredthescientificdebatesthatwouldengagehimasabuddingphilosophicalnaturalist.Healsodevelopedspecificinterestsinanimalphysiology,bioelectricityandreproduc-tion.ButthemostimmediateeffectofEdinburghuponDarwinwastodeflecthimfromacareerinmedicine.WhenDarwinenteredChrist’sCollege,Cambridge,inJanuary1828,hewasenrouteforacareerintheAnglicanclergy–arespectableprofessionforalonglineofCambridgegraduateswithapassionfornaturalhistoryandscience.iiistudiesincambridgeDarwin’sstudentyearsatCambridge(January1828–June1831)immersedhiminaverydifferentintellectualworldfromthehurly-burlymedicalenvironmenthehadleftinEdinburgh.Thelifeoftheuniversitywasdefinedbythecollectionofnearlyindepen-dentseparatecolleges,somefoundedasearlyasthethirteenthcen-tury,governedbyboardsofcelibateFellowsinAnglicanorders,withCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n26phillipr.sloancollegelifestillretainingsomeofthemonasticcharacterofitsmedievalorigins.AllpersonsadmittedhadtosubscribetotheThirty-NineArticlesoftheAnglicancommunion.Instruction,primarilybytutorialssupplementedbyoccasionallecturesbyappointedprofes-sors,wasgenerallyaimedatpreparingstudentsforaseriesofex-aminations,leadingtograduationeitherinanhonourscurriculum(Tripos),or,asinDarwin’scase,alower‘pass’curriculum,resultinginaBAdegree.Forcompletionofhiscourseofstudy,DarwinwasrequiredtoshowcompetenceinoneofthefourGospelsortheActsoftheApostlesintheGreek;intheworksoftheAnglicantheologianWilliamPaley,especiallyhisEvidencesofChristianity;inLocke’sEssayConcerningHumanUnderstanding;andincertainwritingsofAdamSmith,mostlikelyhisTheoryofMoralSentiments.MathematicalrequirementswereintheElementsofEuclid.12ThetraditionoftheAutobiographyhascharacterisedCambridgecollegelifeintheseyearsasaleisurelyworldwithlittleacademicrigour.AgainstthatimageofCambridgemustbebalancedthenu-meroussignsofavigorousintellectuallife,suchasthereformedmedicalcurriculuminwhichCharles’brotherErasmushadenrolled,andthefoundingin1819oftheCambridgePhilosophicalSociety.ThissocietywastransformingthescientificcultureofCambridge,sponsoringmeetingsofCambridgefacultyandgraduatestodiscusscontemporaryissuesinchemistry,geology,botany,electricaltheory,mathematics,opticaltheory,plantphysiologyandanimalandplantclassification.ManyoftheFellowsandProfessorsoftheuniversityhadaffiliatedwiththissocietybythetimeDarwinarrivedasastudent,includingthemineralogistandbotanistHenslow,thegeologistAdamSedgwick,andthepolymathWilliamWhewell,allimportantashismentorsduringtheseyears.Amongtheotherreg-ularswerethechemistCumming,theanatomistWilliamClarkandthearchitectofthenewmedicalcurriculum,JohnHaviland.By1836,theSocietyhad490Fellows,withanother58eminentBritishandforeignhonoraryFellows.13RecordsfromCharles’firstyearatCambridgearesparse,anddonotgiveaclearpictureofhisscientificcontactsandinterests,thoughanincipientnetworkofscientificassociationswasalreadyinplacethankstoErasmus.TheirfirstcousinW.D.Foxwasthemostimpor-tantofCharles’earlyintellectualandsocialconnections.AlifelongcorrespondencecommencedafterFox’sgraduationinsummer1828.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nThemakingofaphilosophicalnaturalist27TheearlylettersrevealthatCharles’Edinburghinterestsinmarineinvertebratesweregivingwaytoapassionatestudyofthelocalbee-tles,withCharlesmakingcontactswithsuchleadingentomologistsasLondon’sF.W.Hope,whowouldgoontoestablishtheEntomo-logicalSocietyofLondonin1833,ofwhichCharleswasafoundingmemberinabsentia.14In1828DarwinbeganattendingFridayeveningmeetingsatHenslow’sapartments.Atthesemeetings,scientificallyinclinedstudentsmetfordiscussionswithseniortutorsassociatedwiththeCambridgePhilosophicalSociety(fromwhichstudentswereexcluded).15Henslowhadonlyrecentlyvacatedthechairofmin-eralogytotakeuptheRegiuschairofbotany,andcommencedhisfirstcourseofbotanicallecturesthatspring.Informandcontent,Henslow’sbotanycoursewashighlysophisticatedforitsday,andimportedintoCambridgethelatestContinentalandBritishbotanicaltheories.16ThecoursewasparticularlymodelledonthewritingsoftheGenevanbotanistAugustinPyramedeCandolle,whichemphasisedbothphysiologicalandclassificatorybotany.Manyfacultyandstudents,includingDarwin,wouldattendHenslow’scoursemorethanonce.ivthetransformationsof1831FollowingthecompletionofhisBAexaminationsinlateJanuary1831–hewasrankedtenthof178candidates17–DarwinspentafurthertwotermsinCambridgetofulfilaresidencerequirementneededtoreceivethedegree.Inthisperiodofleisure,heagainat-tendedHenslow’sbotanycourse,andaparticularlycloseassociationdevelopedwithHenslow.Plansbegantoemergeforapost-graduationsummerexpeditiontothevolcanicislandofTenerife,intheCanaries,withHenslowandthreeotherstudents.MostlikelyunderHenslow’stutelage,Darwinnowbegantoreadtwoworksbytwoprominentmenofsciencewhowouldprofoundlyinfluencehissubsequentthinking:theastronomerJohnHerschel,sonofWilliam,andauthorofthenewlypublishedPreliminaryDiscourseontheStudyofNaturalPhilosophy(1830);andthebiogeographer,explorerandinterpreterofnature,AlexandervonHumboldt,whosePersonalNarrativeofTravelstotheEquinoctialRegionsoftheNewContinentrecordedthe1799–1804expeditionofHumboldtandhisCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n28phillipr.sloancompanionAimeBonplandtotheinteriorofSouthAmerica,witha´stoponthewayatTenerife.Herschel’snewbook,ontheaims,structure,achievementsandproceduresofscience,presentedDarwinforthefirsttimewithasystematicaccountofscientificmethodology.Inthecrucialsecondpartofthiswork,Herschelsetforthatheoryofhowthehumanmindworksinrelationtothesenses.Securenaturalknowledgearisesthroughaprocessofinduction,butthisisnotpassiveinduction,andHerschelappealedtoFrancisBacon’sdistinctionbetween‘active’and‘passive’observationtomakethisdistinction.Factsareclassifiedun-derempiricallaws,andhighertheories,asHerschelwrote,‘resultfromaconsiderationoftheselaws,andoftheproximatecausesbroughtintoviewinthepreviousprocess,regardedalltogetherasconstitutinganewsetofphenomena’.18Herschelarguedthattheaimofsciencewastoascribecertainphenomenato‘truecauses’(veraecausae),‘causesrecognizedashavingarealexistenceinna-ture,andnotbeingmerehypothesesorfigmentsofthemind’.19Fromthistimeforward,thelanguageofHerschelappearsinDarwin’swrit-ings,andthesearchfor‘truecauses’alsobecameDarwin’sgoal.20ThenatureandsignificanceofHumboldt’sinfluenceismoreelu-sive,butarguablyevenmorefar-reaching,and,intheinterpretationofthischapter,decisiveinformingDarwin’speculiarunderstandingofa‘philosophical’naturalist.HelikelyfirstlearnedofHumboldt’stheoriesindetailthroughHenslow’sbotanylecturesinspring1831,andtheeffectwastransformative.Hespeaksofhowheworkedallmorning‘tillHenslow’slecture’,allthewhileinhis‘head...run-ningabouttheTropics:inthemorningIgoandgazeatPalmtreesinthehot-houseandcomehomeandreadHumboldt:myenthusiasmissogreatthatIcannothardlysitstillonmychair....IneverwillbeeasytillIseethepeakofTeneriffe[sic]andthegreatDragontree;sandy,dazzling,plains,andgloomysilentforestarealternatelyup-permostinmymind.’21FromHumboldt,morethananyotherauthor,Darwinacquiredthevisionofacomprehensiveandholisticscienceofthenaturalworld,ascienceconcernedaboveallwithinterrelatedphenomena–biological,geologicalandatmospheric.Humboldtiansciencesoughttodeterminefrom‘thearrangementofbrutematterorganizedinrocks,inthedistributionandmutualrelationsofplantsandanimals’the‘lawsoftheirrelationswitheachother,andtheeter-naltieswhichlinkthephaenomenaoflife,andthoseofinanimateCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nThemakingofaphilosophicalnaturalist29nature’.22Plantformsweretoberelatedtogeographyandgeology,andthedistributionofvegetationwasrelatedtothephysicalpa-rametersoftheatmosphereandthephysicaltopographyoftheland.Humboldt’svisionwasunlikeanythingDarwinhadpreviouslyen-countered.Itthereaftersuppliedhimwithaparadigmofscientificsynthesisthatconnectedspecificenquiriesintodetailedphenomenawithgeneraltheorisingonthegrandestscale.Justasimportant,ital-teredDarwin’ssensibility,priminghimtoexperiencenatureatonceconceptuallyandaesthetically.ThelessonsDarwindrewfromHerschelandHumboldtappliedtoscienceingeneral.Darwinalsoacquiredanewpracticalskillinthisperiod.Topreparehimselfmoredeeplyingeologyfortheantic-ipatedCanariesexpedition,inthespringDarwinaccompaniedtheRegiusprofessorofgeologyandcurrentpresidentoftheGeologicalSocietyofLondon,theReverendAdamSedgwick,inasurveyofthegeologyaroundtheCambridgearea.InJuly,DarwinmadehisownprivategeologicalsurveyoftheregionaroundShrewsbury.InAugusthejoinedSedgwickinasurveyofthegeologyofnorthWalesalongtheClwydvalleyandsurroundingareas.HewouldlaterrecallthatthisexcursiongavehimtheskillsheneededforthegeologicalworkoftheBeagleyears.23Althoughthedeathofaco-organiserputanendtotheTenerifeexpedition,hedidnothavelongtowaitforanotheropportunitytoputthosenewskillstouse.Histeachershadrecom-mendedhimtotheNavalAdmiraltyOfficeastheidealpersontojoinHMSBeagleonasurveyingvoyagetothetipofSouthAmerica.Thevessel’syoungcommander,CaptainRobertFitzRoy,hadrequestedagentlemanciviliancompanion,responsibleforhisownexpenses,andknowledgeableingeology,withwhomtodineandshareinterests.WhenDarwinreturnedfromWales,aletterofinvitationawaited.Withthereluctantapprovalofhisfather,heacceptedtheposition.Itwasinthemonthsofpreparationbeforedeparture,intheautumnof1831,thatheencounteredtheworkofhisthirdgreat‘philosophical’mentor,theformerbarristerandgeologistCharlesLyell,throughthepresentationofthefirstvolumeofLyell’srecentlypublishedPrinciplesofGeologybyCaptainFitzRoyastheBeaglewaspreparingforitsextensiveseavoyage.InthisfirstvolumeDarwinreadLyell’slengthyhistoricalreviewofthescienceofgeologyinwhichLyellinterpretedthereasonsforthefailureoftheearlierschoolsofgeologytosupplyasatisfactoryaccountofthegeologicalCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n30phillipr.sloanhistoryoftheearth.SingledoutforcriticismwastheFrenchnat-uralistGeorgesCuvier,whosesynthesisofgeologicalhistoryandpalaeontologyhaddeeplyinfluencedDarwin’spreviousmentorsingeology–Jameson,SedgwickandHumboldt.Laterdubbed‘catas-trophism’,Cuvier’sdoctrineheldthatthesuddenactionofvolca-noes,floods,rapidclimaticcoolingandearthquakesinthepasthadproduceddrasticchangesinthesurfaceoftheearth,resultinginperi-odicandsuddenextinctionsoffaunaandflora.AgainstCuvier,Lyellposedhisown‘philosophical’view,whichemphasisedthe‘undevi-atinguniformityofsecondarycauses’.Afterall,quitegenerally,oneis‘guidedbyhisfaithinthisprinciple’,injudging‘theprobabilityofaccounts[...]offormeroccurrences’,andinoftenrejecting‘thefab-uloustalesofformerages,onthegroundoftheirbeingirreconcilablewiththeexperienceofmoreenlightenedages’.24Onthebasisofthisprinciple,dubbed‘uniformitarianism’bysubsequentcommentators,Lyellclaimedthatthecausesofgeologicalchangesoperatinginthepastmustbeassumedtobeidenticalwiththecausesobservedact-ingatthepresent,andatthesameintensity.25Thisprincipleformstheframeworkwithinwhichheanalysedthegeologicalandfossilrecord.Alongsidethenon-historicalandgeographicalapproachheencounteredinHumboldt,Darwinnowhadanauthoritywhohadintroducedtheissueofhistoricalprocessandtemporalcausationinanewandexcitingway.Darwin’sencounterwithinonecalendaryearwiththreemajorsyntheticscientificthinkersgavehimmodelsforalayscientificcareer,onetiedneithertoclericaldutiesnortoteaching.Thesethreeauthoritieswereboldtheorists,aswellasmeticulousdescribersofnaturalphenomena,andtheirtheorisingreceivedrespectratherthandisdainfromhismentorslikeHenslow.Allofthemhadbeenorcurrentlyweretravellerstoexoticplaces:HerschelwasthenattheCapeofGoodHope,mappingthesouthernheavens;Humboldtwasafamousexplorerofthetropics;LyellhadtravelledextensivelyontheContinentlearningitsgeology.AnewvocationwasopeningbeforeDarwinashepreparedfortheBeagle’sdeparture.vundersailAfterseveralmonthsofpreparationanddelays,theBeagle,asmallmano’warconvertedintoacoastalsurveyingship,leftDevonport,CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nThemakingofaphilosophicalnaturalist31England,inlateDecember1831.ItwouldnotreturnuntilearlyOctober1836.AlthoughoriginallyintendedtobeasurveyingtriptothesoutherntipofSouthAmerica,theexpeditioneventuallyturnedintoacircumnavigationoftheglobe.ThevoyagemadeDarwinintooneofthegreatsea-goingnaturalistsofhisera,anexplorerinthetra-ditionofJohannandGeorgForster,thefather-and-sonteamwhohadaccompaniedthelatervoyagesofCaptainJamesCooktotheSouthPacificintheeighteenthcentury.Forfifty-eightmonthsthesmallshipwouldbeDarwin’sprimaryhomeandworkplace.Initsten-by-eleven-footpoopcabin,housingthelibraryoftheBeagle–therewerearound245volumes–Darwincarriedoutshipboardstudiesofmarineorganismsobtainedbydredgingandnethauls,andanalysedthegeologicalspecimensacquiredinhislandexplorations.26Itwashere,too,thathedrewuphissyntheticreflectionsinthelatermonthsofthevoyage.Itisdifficulttoappreciateinourageofinstantcommunicationthedegreeofisolationthiskindofadventureentailed,orthesenseofcul-turaldisconnectednessthatDarwinexperiencedonthereturnhomeafterfiveyearsatsea.AlettertoDarwinfromhomeanditsreturnre-sponsemighttakeaslongaseighteenmonthstocompletethecircuit.Requestsforbooksandsupplies,andtheireventualarrival,hadtofollowthesameslowroute.ThesecondvolumeofLyell’sPrinciples(1832),dealingwithLamarckism,biogeography,thebirthanddeathofspeciesandtheformationanddistributionofcoralreefs,reachedDarwinremarkablyquicklyinMonteVideo,Uruguay,inlate1832.Thethirdvolume(1833),treatingindetailtheclassificationofmaingeologicalperiods,theuseoffossilshellstocharacterisesedimen-taryrocks,andofferingfurtherreflectionsonthecausesofgeologicalchange,wasreceivedattheFalklandsinspring1834.Otherworkstookmuchlongertocatchupwiththeship.SomerequestedworksapparentlyneverreachedtheBeagleatall.Duringthisperiod,Darwin’sthoughtdevelopedinwaysthatarenoteasytocharacterise.Aswehaveseen,heleftEnglandwellpreparedinseveralareasofscience,withageneralintellectualformationindebtedtoseveralmentors–principallyGrant,HenslowandSedgwick(inperson),andHumboldt,HerschelandLyell(onthepage).Naturallyenough,Darwinhadtakenupanumberoftheirbeliefsabouttheworldanditsproperstudy.Inthecourseofthevoyage,however,hefoundhimselfapplying,testingandmodifyingCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n32phillipr.sloanthesebeliefsagainstasetofpersonalexperiencesthatfartranscendedthoseofhisteachersandintellectualheroes.Darwin’sdevelopmentinthisperiodwasillustratedinempiricalresearchesandtheoreticalreflections.Hisextensiveempiricalinves-tigationsintheBeagleyears–inzoology,geologyandnaturalhistory–arerecordedinthefourboundZoologicalDiaries,thethreeboundGeologicalDiariesandthetenvolumesof‘NotesonGeologyofthePlacesVisitedduringtheVoyage’.Morereflectiveandsyntheticob-servationsofplacesandpeoplescanbefoundintheso-calledBeagleDiary,whichformedthebasisfortheworkthatmadeDarwinapublicfigure,theJournalofResearches(1839).InadditiontothesesourcestherearetheeighteenpocketfieldnotebooksthatservedastheoriginalrecordsfortheBeagleDiary;amplecorrespondence(nowpublished);andthecataloguesofspecimens.Therearealsoseveraldocuments,drawnuponthereturnlegofthevoyage,containingimportantsyntheticreflectionsoncoralreefs,geologicalformationsandtheinterrelationsofgeologicalandbiologicalissues.Duringthefirstlegofthejourney,fromEnglandtotheCapeVerdeIslands,offequatorialAfrica,Darwincommencedhisfirst‘Zoolog-icalDiary’,fillingitwithdescriptionsofunusualinvertebratescol-lectedwithanettrawl.Heillustratedsomeofthesedescriptionswithinkdrawingsofthecreaturesasviewedunderamicroscope.27AttheislandofStJago(nowSaoTiago)intheCapeVerdes,wheretheBeaglewasstationedfrommid-JanuarytoearlyFebruary1832,Darwin’szoologicaldiscussionsshiftedtostudiesoflandandinter-tidalinvertebrates.Itwasherethathebeganhisgeologicalnote-books,commencingwithastudyofthetinyQuailIslandintheharbourofPortoPlayaonStJago.Fromthisdatewecanfollowadevelopingresearchagendaintobiologicalandgeologicalissuesthatwasmaintainedthroughoutthevoyage.HisearliestzoologicalandgeologicalentriesatStJagobothemployasimilarnarrativestyleofdescriptionstronglyreminis-centofHumboldt’sPersonalNarrative.Hisgeologicalrecordsveryquicklydemonstratehisnewpracticalskillsinfieldgeology,andhisexplanationsdisplayhisearlyconversiontoLyellianism.Hisnotesonbothzoologicalandgeologicalissuesinterweavedetaileddescrip-tionandexperimentalenquiry.Therearedescriptionsofstrata,anal-ysesofthesuperpositionoflayersofrock,anddetailsofexperimentsusingablow-pipeandchemicalreagentstodeterminethepreciseCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nThemakingofaphilosophicalnaturalist33mineralcompositionofrockspecimens.Therearecarefuldescrip-tionsoforganismsinalivingstateandalsounderexperimentalcon-ditions.TherearediscussionsofthecomplexgeologicallayeringofformationsonQuailIslandandStJago.Thereareestimatesoftheprobableantiquityofmineraldepositsbasedontheshellsofvariousmolluscs–amethodworkedoutindetailinthelattersectionsofthefirstvolumeofLyell’sPrinciples.WefindDarwinseekingnat-uralisticexplanationsforthelayeringofgeologicalformations,andappealingtoagradualist,ratherthancatastrophic,subsidenceandel-evationoftheland.28Thereisadiscussionofsuperficialor‘diluvial’layersinwhichnomentionismadeofasuddenfloodasthecause,apopularbeliefinBritishgeologicalcirclesatthetime.TwogeneralfeaturesofDarwin’swritingsfromthistimestandout.Oneistheinterweavingofdescription,causalexplanationandreportsofoccasionalexperimentalenquiries.Theotheristheroughlyparalleltreatmentofbiologicalandgeologicaltopics.Boththeinterweavingandtheparallelismwouldremainconstantthroughthefiveyearsofthevoyage.Thevastlylargeramountofgeologicalwritings(1,383folios)comparedtozoologicalwritings(368folios)re-flectsinpartthedifferentamountsofworkingtimeDarwinactuallyspentonlandandsea.Hisgeologicaldescriptionsandexplanatoryanalysisweretheresultsofoftenextendedoverlandjourneys,eightoftheseinSouthAmericaalone,withoneofnineweeks’duration(ValparaisotoCopiaco,Chile).IntheseinvestigationsDarwinsoughttocharacteriseentireregionsandtheirgeneralstratigraphy.Inhismarinezoologicalwork,bycontrast,Darwinwasoftenhamperedbypoorconditions.MuchofthetimeaboardshipwasspentintheroughwatersofSouthAmerica,wherecrampedworkingconditionsandDarwin’scontinuedsea-sicknesspreventedsustainedconcen-tration.Nonetheless,Darwin’szoologicalinterestsweresustainedthroughtheseyears,deeplyfocusedonafewselectproblemspre-sentedbyspecificgroupsoforganisms,primarilythecolonialinver-tebratesandother‘plant-animals’,thesamegrouphehadstudiedasastudentinEdinburgh.29visynthetictheorisingonthebeagleAswehaveseen,Darwinhadencounteredexamplesofgrand,synthetictheorisingpriortotheBeaglevoyage.InfourexamplesCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n34phillipr.sloanbetween1834and1836,wefindDarwin’sowneffortstorealisesimilarsyntheses.Thefirstoftheseprojectsrelatestothedetailedzoologicalenquiries.OneissuethathadattractedDarwintothestudyofthe‘plant-animals’–thegroupsformingthecolonialma-rineforms(coelenterates,bryozoans,coralsandalsothecorallinealgae)–wastheextenttowhichthesecreaturestrulylinkedtheanimalandplantkingdomstogether.SeveraloftheworksintheBeagle’slibrarydealtwiththeissue,includingthezoologicalworksofLamarck.30Mostauthorshereadonthetopicdeniedagenuinelinkbetweenplantsandanimals.ButDarwin’sinvestigationsontheBeagleledhimtotheoppositeconclusion.InDarwin’sview,whatunifiedplantsandanimalswasacommonmodeofrepro-duction,centringontheactionof‘dynamic’granulesfoundintheprotoplasmofcolonialanimalsandplants.Inaseriesofwritingsbetween1834and1836,hecametotheconclusionthatasimilar‘granular’matterwasfoundinboththelowestplantsandanimalsandinvolvedintheirreproduction,justifyingtheclaimtherewas‘muchanalogybetweenZoophites&Plants’.31Thistheoryofauni-fyingvitalmatter,oftendesignated‘gemmules’intheBeagledocu-ments,wouldreappearinalteredformin1868inthehypothesisofpangenesis.AsecondexampleofDarwin’ssyntheticambitionintheBeagleyearsishisattempt,whilehewasstillinSouthAmerica,torelatehisextensivegeologicalworktobiologicalquestions.Inaten-pagemanuscriptwritteninearly1834andentitled‘ReflectionsonRead-ingmyGeologicalNotes’,DarwinsummarisedhisexaminationofthegeologyoftheeasternsideoftheSouthAmericancontinentinordertorevealit‘asonegrandformation’.32Appealingtogradualupliftastheprimarycauseofgeologicalchange,butstillallowingforthesuddennessofitsaction,Darwinrelatedthiselevationoftheseafloortotheappearanceoflife:Mayweconjecturethatthese[repeatedelevations][....]beganwithgreaterstrides,thatrocksfromseastoodeepforlife[....]wererapidlyelevated&thatimmediatelywhenwithinaproperdepth.lifecommenced[....]Theelevationsrapidlycontinued;landwasproducedonwhichgreatquadrupedslived:theformerinhabitantsoftheseavanished(perhapsaneffectofthesechanges)thepresentonesappearedonthenewbeaches.–Thepresentquadrupedsroamedabout[....]33CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nThemakingofaphilosophicalnaturalist35Inthisdocument,Darwinalsoqueriedtheoriginofthecontinent’sinhabitants–‘fromwhencecameitsorganizedbeing[sic]’–andspec-ulatedonhowthequadrupedsfromsouthoftheLaPlatariver‘mayeasilyhavetraveledfromtheirNorthernoriginalhomes’.34RapidelevationalsosuppliedDarwinwithanexplanationofhowspeciesbecameextinct,ornearlyextinct,inPatagonia.Theelevationoftheland,hewrote,‘seemstohavedestroyedthemsuddenly:thoughintheSouthallowingpartialre-appearances:ifnotdestroyedhighlyinjurious’.35Athirdexampleofhiseffortsatintegrationistheso-called‘GeologyNote’,composedeitherontheislandofChiloeorattheportofValdiviainwesternSouthAmericainFebruaryof1835.36WhileonChiloeinJuneandJulyof1834,Darwinhadbeendeeplyimpressedwiththepowerofvegetativereproductioninthelocalappletrees.Hisinterestinthegeneralquestionofreproductivepoweranditsen-durancedatedatleastfromHenslow’sbotanicallectures.37Withthislong-standinginterestnowre-awakened,Darwinbegantoexploretheextenttowhichreproductivepowerwasrelatedtoissuesofgeologicaldynamics,inparticulartheproblemofexplainingtheextinctionofthelarge‘mastodon’(Macraucheniapatachonica,laterreclassifiedasarelativeofthecamel),whosefossilisedre-mainshehadunearthedatPortStJulianinPatagoniainJanuary1834.CommentingonLyell’sdiscussionofthebirthanddeathofspeciesinthePrinciples,38Darwinstruggledwithtwoalternativeexplana-tions.Thefirst,attributedbyLyelltotheItalianhistoricalgeologistGiovanniBrocchi,explainedtheextinctionofspeciesasduetotheexhaustionofafinitequantityoflifeforce.OntheBrocchianview,speciesextinctionwasthusdependentoninternalcauses,onanal-ogywiththeeventualextinctionofavegetativelineagepropagatedfromanappletree.Theotherview,favouredbyLyell,relatedtheextinctionofspeciestoslowexternalchangesinthephysicalcon-ditionsofexistence.Inthe‘GeologicalNote’,Darwinseemstornbetweenthesetwoexplanations.Hewasnowconvincedtherehadbeenagradualbirthanddeathofspecies;butherecognisedthatthisfactwasconsistentwithbothexplanationsofextinction.Hepuzzledgenerallyoverthewholenotionofsomespeciesdyingoutandotherspeciesbeingborntoreplacethem.Asa‘falseanalogy’,CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n36phillipr.sloanhethinksitplausiblethattheremightbealimiteddurationoflife-forceinaspeciessimilartothatinappletrees,‘AfactsuppositionincontradictiontothefitnesswitwhichtheAuthorofNaturehasnowestablished.–’39TheBrocchianalternativeseemstohavewonDarwin’sallegiancebytheendofthevoyage.Thefourth,andbestknown,exampleofDarwin’ssyntheticthe-orisingishistheoryofcoralreefformation.HisreflectionsalongtheselinesbeganwhiletheBeaglewasstillontheSouthAmericancoast,beforetheshiphadencounteredanygreatreef-buildingcorals,andwereprobablystimulatedbyhisreadingofLyell’s(second-hand)accountofthestructureandformationofthePacificcoralreefs.40DarwinhadbeeninstructedbyhismentorsbeforetheBeagle’sdepar-turetolearnmoreaboutcoralreefs.Thecoralsalsoformedacruciallinkbetweenhisfunctionalbiologicalinvestigationsonthecolonialinvertebratesandthegeologicalenquiries.AsLyellmadeclear,asatisfactorytheoryofreefformationre-quiredthesolutiontothreeissues.First,itneededtoexplainhowcoralpolypsgrowandcommunicatewithinareef.Darwinhadbeenthinkingaboutthegeneralquestionofgrowthandcommunicationamongcolonialorganismsforsometime,inthecourseofhisstudiesofthecolonialseafansandbryozoans.Inthecaseoftheseorganisms,theconnectionsbetweentheseparatecolonieswerecontemporane-ous,whiletheconnectionsbetweenthecomponentsofgreatcoralreefswerelargelyhistorical.Thesecondissuetobefacedwastheneedtoexplainwhycoralsgrowwheretheydo,andinparticulartoexplaintherelationofreefformationtoavailablelight.Thethirdex-planatoryissuewasaproblemingeologicaldynamics:whatexplainsthedifferencesbetweenfringing,barrierandatollreefs?Lyell,forhispart,hadproposedthatatolls,forexample,wereformedonthetopsofrisingsubmarinevolcanoes.Moregenerally,heemphasisedthegradualelevationoftheseafloorintheformationofreefs.ExceptforminorencounterswithcoralreefsatStJagoin1832,theeastcoastofSouthAmericaandtheGalapagos,Darwin’spersonalacquaintancewiththegreatreef-formingvarietiesawaitedcontactwithTahition15November1835.41Sometimefollowingthevisittotheseislands,hefirstsketchedouthisnewtheoryofcoralreefformation.42Priortothesereflections,DarwinhadadoptedLyell’sconclusionontheimportanceofelevationinbringingcoralreefsintoCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nThemakingofaphilosophicalnaturalist37being.NowDarwinstruckoutonhisown,producingatheorythatacceptedgradualLyellianmechanisms,butwhichemphasisedtheimportanceofgradualsubsidenceintheformationofallthreeformsofreefs.vii‘likeanothersun[humboldt]illumineseverythingibehold.’43ThesesynthesesprovidemuchinsightintoDarwin’stheoreticalpre-occupationsandprowessintheBeagleyears.Justasimportantarethe‘generalconclusions’hedeveloped,particularlyintheBeagleDiary,butalsointheZoologicalDiaries.ThesereflectionsdeveloptherudimentsofageneralphilosophyofnatureinwhichDarwinsoughttointegratetheland,sea,forestandlandscape,encounteredinaholisticexperienceofnaturereminiscentofHumboldt’sownreflections.44Thispersonalexperienceof‘Nature’wasanexperi-encethat,asDarwinlaterrecalled,was‘intimatelyconnectedwithabeliefinGod,[and]didnotessentiallydifferfromthatwhichisoftencalledthesenseofsublimity’.45ConsiderhisnotestohimselfoncrossingtheAndesbetweenValparaisoandMendozaChileinMarchof1835:Whenwereachedthecrest&lookedbackwards,agloriousviewwaspre-sented.Theatmospheresoresplendentlyclear,theskyanintenseblue,theprofoundvalleys,thewildbrokenforms,theheapsofruinspiledupdur-ingthelapseofages,thebrightcoloredrocks,contrastedwiththequietmountainsofSnow,togetherproducedasceneInevercouldhaveimagined.Neitherplantorbird,exceptingafewcondorswheelingaroundthehigherpinnacles,distractedtheattentionfromtheinanimatemass.IfeltgladIwasbymyself,itwaslikewatchingathunderstorm,orhearinginthefullorchestraachorusoftheMessiah.46TheseemotiveresponsestothenaturalworlddidnotshapeDarwin’sscientificresearchinastraightforwardway.Rather,theyrevealthegeneral,holistictenorofDarwin’sreflectionsinthisperiod,andsothrowlightonwhyitiswecannotdrawsharpdistinctionsbe-tween‘geography’,‘geology’,‘zoology’and‘botany’incharacterisingDarwin’sworkatthistime.AttentiontotheHumboldtian,inte-grativedimensionsofDarwin’sthoughtlikewisemakessenseofCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n38phillipr.sloannumerousDiarypassagesontherelationsofthoughtandmatter,theanimalandthehuman,thecivilisedandthesavage.Asforthoughtandmatter,insuchworksastheAnsichtenderNaturof1807,andinconsiderabledetailinthelaterKosmos,Humboldtrejectedasharpdistinctionbetweenthelivingandthedead,thecon-sciousandtheunconscious,theanimateandtheinanimate.Onani-malsandhumans,inthePersonalNarrative,theworkofHumboldtthatDarwinstudiedmostcloselyintheseyears,Humboldtwroteofthe‘intellectualpowers’ofmonkeys,andofsimilaritiesbe-tweenhumansandapes.47Andasforthecivilisedandthesavage,HumboldtwasalsoconcernedwiththerelationsofendemicandEuropeanpeoples,andtheexplanationofthedifferencesbetweenthem.48Darwin’sremarksonaboriginalsdeservecloseattentioninthisconnection,particularlythosegeneratedbyhisencounterwiththenativepeoplesofTierradelFuegoinJanuary1833andMarch1834.DarwindidnottheorisesystematicallyabouttheFuegiansorotheraboriginalsduringtheseyears,andwehavenogeneralsyntheticdoc-umentofhisviews.HisDiarydiscussionsnonethelessreadalmostasakindofdialoguewithHumboldt.AsHumboldthadconcludedafterhisownencounterwiththeoriginalpeoples,Darwinwasim-pressedwiththeartisticskillsoftheFuegians,whichhelikenedto‘theinstinctofanimals’.AgainwithHumboldt,DarwinbelievedthattheFuegianswere‘essentiallythesamecreature’ashimself,andyetutterlyandprofoundlydifferent–‘howlittlemustthemindofoneofthesebeingsresemblethatofaneducatedman.WhatascaleofimprovementiscomprehendedbetweenthefacultiesofaFuegiansavage&aSirIsaacNewton!Whencehavethesepeoplecome?Havetheyremainedinthesamestatesincethecreationoftheworld?’49AgainlikeHumboldt,Darwinattributedthediversityofhumanbeingswithintheonestocktotheactionofacre-ative‘Nature’,ratherthantothetraditionalCreatoroftheBible.‘Nature’,Darwinwrote,‘bymakinghabitomnipotent,hasfittedtheFuegiantotheclimate&productionsofhiscountry.’50Attheotherendofthescale,DarwindetectedaHumboldtiandynamismanden-ergy,evenattributingprimitiveawarenesstoextremelylowformsoflife,aswhenhewritesofhowthecolonialinvertebrateCrisiadisplaysa‘co-sensation&aco-willoverwholeCoralline’.51Takenasawhole,theDiaryentriesandstraycommentsinothermaterialsCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nThemakingofaphilosophicalnaturalist39reflectanabiding,Humboldtianconcernwiththeplaceofhumanbeingsinnature,andmoregenerallywiththerelationofconscious-nesstothepanoramicworldhisBeagleadventureswererevealingtohim.WhentheBeaglelandedattheGalapagosArchipelagoinOctober1835forsixweeksofsailingbetweentheislands,interspersedwithinlandgeologicalexplorationandspecimencollecting,Darwinhadalreadydevelopedconsiderablyasa‘philosophical’naturalist.Alongliterature,drawingonDarwin’sownlaterautobiographicalremarks,hashelpedsustainalegendthattheGalapagosperiodwascrucialforthedevelopmentofhislatertheories.Infact,theGalapagosexperi-encewasonlyone,ifperhapsthemostprominent,exampleamongseveralencounterswiththephenomenaofislandbiogeography.HisstudiesontheFalklandsandtheChonosArchipelagohadprecededthis.TheGalapagosexperienceinitselfwasneithernecessarynorsufficientforthegenesisofhislatertransmutationistviews.Indeed,histimeintheGalapagosappearstohavehadlittleimmediateimpactonhisthinking.ItwasonlyafterreturningtoEnglandthatDarwincametoemphasisetheGalapagosasthesiteofamajorepiphany.52NotwithstandingtheimportantreflectionsinFebruary1835onspeciesbirthanddeath,thereisnothinginthedocumentaryarchiveoftheBeaglevoyagethatmapsdirectlyontotheissueofthetrans-mutationofspecies,notatleastasDarwinengagedthisissueinhispost-voyagenotebooksduringthespringandsummerof1837.Nonetheless,wecanseeintheintegrativeeffortsdescribedinthelastsection,andintheholisticvisionofnatureoutlinedinthissection,thatDarwinthevoyagerwasseekingtosynthesisehisobservationsalongseverallinesofenquiry.Allofthisactiv-itywouldformthebackgroundofhisresearchonhisreturntoEngland.viii‘myheadisquiteconfusedwithsomuchdelight’53FollowingshortstopsatNewZealand,Australia,theKeeling(nowCocos)Islands,Mauritius,theCapeofGoodHope(whereDarwinconversedwithHerschelhimself),thecentralAtlanticIslands,Bahia(again),BrazilandtheAzores,theBeaglereachedFalmouthonCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n40phillipr.sloan2October1836.TheEnglandhefoundondisembarkinghadchangedmuchinhisfiveyearsofabsence.Peopleweretravellingwidelyonrailroads;newauthorities,manyofthemGerman,hadenteredscientificdiscourse;newscientificsocietieshadbeenformed,andotherswerenowflourishing,suchastheBritishAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience,foundedintheyeartheBeaglesailed.Aftertheisolationofthelongvoyage,Darwinwasunderstandablyeagertosharehisexperienceswithothers,andtocatchuponwhathehadmissed.Notleast,thereweregreatpilesofjournalsandbookstobereadifhewastoparticipateindebatesandconversationswithinthescientificcommunity.Hisprioritywastointegrateandconnecthisdetailedinvestigationscautiouslytogether.Althoughonceplanningtobecomeaparson-naturalist,hehadnowdecidedonthecareerofametropolitangentlemanofscience.ItwasevidenttothosewhoknewhimthatDarwinhadreturnedasahighlyskilledandcreativeinvestigator.ApublicidentityasageologisthadbeenpreparedinadvancebyHenslow’sunauthorisedpublicationofgeologicalreflectionsfromsomeofDarwin’slet-tersof1834,andbythepriorreceptionofhisshipmentsofSouthAmericanmineralsandfossils.ButDarwin’sgeologisingwasonlyonefacetofhiscomplexintellectualmake-upandrisingscien-tificreputation.Hisextensivecollectionsofbirds,fish,insectsandplantswonadmirationwithintheZoologicalSocietyofLondon.54SoonassociatingwithLyellandwithRichardOwen,London’sfore-mostcomparativeanatomist,Darwinwassoonengagedintheanalysisofhisfossilmaterialsandtheirrelationtogeologicaldynamics.Byearly1837,Darwinwaspositionedtomakethegreatsynthesisofissuesforwhichheisnowbestknown.Inthebackgroundstoodthetotalityofhisexperiencesandreflections.AsheanalysedhisBeaglespecimensandnotebooks,hewasabletodrawupontherangeofscientificcompetencies,reflectionsandinspirationsthathadfilledthepastfiveyears.ThetrainingoftheEdinburghandCambridgeyears;hismanifoldencounterswithstrangeplacesandpeoples;therevelationsofthetropicalrainforeststhatcreatedanex-periencethatDarwinwantedto‘fixforeverinmymind’55:allweredrawnintotheinvestigationsthatwouldoccupyhimforthenexttwentyyearsandbeyond.Whenhewrote,shortlyafterhisreturn,ofCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nThemakingofaphilosophicalnaturalist41alawgoverningthesuccessionofspeciesintimethatwouldinter-est‘everyphilosophicalnaturalist’,hewaswritingasonewhohadindeedbecomeonehimself.notes1.C.Darwin[1839]1986,164.2.Onthemeaningoftheterm‘philosophicalnaturalists’,seeRehbock1983,‘Introduction’andtheIntroductiontothisvolume.3.C.Darwin[1859]1964,ch.10.4.C.Darwin1958.ForhisearlierautobiographicalsketchofAugust1838,seeF.Burkhardtetal.1985–2001,Correspondenceii,438–41(hereafterCCD).SeealsoBrowne1995;DesmondandMoore1991;Bowlby1990;Bowler1990;Brent1981.5.C.Darwin1958,9.SeealsoBrowne1995,23–7.6.C.DarwinPapers,UniversityLibrary,Cambridge,DAR5,Series1:‘NotesonDr.Hope’sChymistry’.7.Secord1991.8.DarwintoCarolineDarwin,8April1826,inCCDi,39.9.OnLamarck,seeR.W.Burkhardt1977.OnGeoffroy,seeRehbock1983,ch.1andAppel1987,esp.ch.4.10.Browne1995,72–82.11.C.Darwin,‘NotebookofObservationsEdinburgh,1827’,inBarrett1977,ii,285–91.Forfurtherdiscussion,seeEndersby,thisvolume.12.DarwintoW.D.Fox,25–29January1829,inCCDi,74,75n.7.13.Hall1969.FormembershiplistseeAnon.1836.14.F.W.HopetoDarwin,15January1834,CCDi,363.15.C.Darwin1958,22.16.Henslow1828,1833.17.CCDi,112n.3.18.Herschel[1830]1987,190.19.Herschel[1830]1987,144.20.ForfurtherdiscussionseeHull,thisvolume.21.DarwintoCarolineDarwin,28April1831,inCCDi,122.22.Humboldt[1814–29]1966,i,viii.OnHumboldt’sprojectofa‘physicsoftheearth’seeDettelbach1996,258–92.SeealsoNicolson1987,1990.ForfurtherdiscussionofHumboldt’srelationtoDarwinseeSloan2001,R.J.Richards1999andRichards,thisvolume.23.DarwintoHenslow,18May1832,inCCDi,238.SeealsoBrowne1995,141–3.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n42phillipr.sloan24.Lyell[1830–3]1990,i,76.25.Lyell[1830–3]1990,i,163–6.26.Seelistin‘TheBooksonBoardtheBeagle’,AppendixivinCCDi,553–66.27.Keynes2000.28.DarwinPapers,Cambridge,DAR32.1,fol.18r.29.SeeSloan1985foraquantitativediscussionoftheseinterests.30.Sloan1985,esp.105ff.31.DarwinPapers,Cambridge,DAR5,fol.99.SeefulltranscriptionofthisdocumentinSloan1985,106–7.32.DarwinPapers,Cambridge,DAR42,fol.7,asinHerbert1995,31.33.DarwinPapers,Cambridge,DAR42,fol.7.Slightrevisionsofthetran-scriptioninHerbert1995,31–2.34.DarwinPapers,Cambridge,DAR42,fol.10,asinHerbert1995,33.35.DarwinPapers,Cambridge,DAR42,fol.10v,asinHerbert1995,33.36.DarwinPapers,Cambridge,DAR42,ser.3.SeefulltranscriptioninHodge1983,19–20.37.SeeSloan1986,esp.373–87.38.Lyell[1830–3]1990,ii,128–31.39.DarwinPapers,Cambridge,DAR42,fol.2v;Hodge1983,20.40.Lyell[1830–3]1990,ii,ch.18.41.Diary,entryfor21November1835,inBarrettandFreeman1986(here-afterWorks),i,324.42.DarwinPapers,Cambridge,DAR41.SeecompletetranscriptioninStoddart1962.43.Diary,entryfor28February1832,Worksi,38.44.SeeDiaryentriesfor28February,26Mayand19December1832;9Juneand17August1834;21–22March1835;and1May1836forexamples(Worksi).45.C.Darwin1958,65.SeeKohn1996;J.Campbell1974;Sloan2001.OnDarwin’semulationofHumboldt,seeletterofCarolineDarwintoDarwin,28October1833,CCDi,345.46.Diary,Worksi,266–7.47.SeeHumboldt[1814–29]1966,iii,106,172.48.Humboldt[1814–29]1966,iii,240.49.Diary,Worksi,194.50.Diary,Worksi,195.51.Keynes2000,228.52.Sulloway1982a,1982b.53.DarwintoJosiahWedgewood,5October1836,CCDi,504.54.DarwinhadreservedforhimselftheinvertebratevolumeoftheBeaglezoology.SeeletterofDarwintoHenslow,14October1837,CCDii,51.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nThemakingofaphilosophicalnaturalist43Thisvolumeneverappeared,unlessoneconsidersthevariousminorpa-personmarineinvertebrates,andeventhegreatworkonthebarnacles,asaspectsofthisoriginalplanforaninvertebratevolume.IamindebtedtothevaluablepaperbyLove(2002)forclarifyingmyunderstandingofthisintendedinvertebratevolumeoftheZoology.55.Diary,entryfor1–6August1836,Worksi,379.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\njonathanhodge2ThenotebookprogrammesandprojectsofDarwin’sLondonyearsifromthebeagleyearstothelawsoflifeInMarch1837,fivemonthsafterreturningfromtheBeaglevoyage,DarwinsettledinLondon.Hewastoliveinthecapitalforfiveyears.Theywerebyfarhismostproductiveyearsintellectually.Duringthem,heformulatedalmostallthemaintheorieslaterpublishedinthe1850s,1860sand1870s:histheoryoftheoriginofspecies–naturalselection;histheoryofgenerationorreproductionandheredity–pangenesis;histheoryoftheoriginofthemoralsenseinmanfromancestralanimalsocialinstincts;andhisinterpreta-tionoftheexpressionoftheemotionsinmanandanimals.Ofhisprominentintellectualproductionsonlytwo–thetheoryofsexualselectionandtheprincipleofdivergenceofvarietiesandspecies–camelater,andtheywereconceivedaselaborationsofthetheoryofnaturalselection.InthesefiveLondonyears,twoperiodswerequiteexceptionallyconsequential:thespringandearlysummerof1837,immediatelyafterhismovetoLondon,andthesummerandearlyautumnofthefollowingyear,1838.AteachofthesetimesDarwinmadevastesca-latingmovesinhisthinkingandhistheoreticalambitions.Bymid-September1838,indeed,hisambitionshadreachedapeakneverlatertobesurpassed.Onecanthereforereadtherestofhislifeassomanysequelstothebrainworkofthesemonths.Theworkwasmostlydoneinaseriesofsmallleatherboundnote-books.InoraboutJuly1837,Darwinopenedtwonotebooks.One,‘A’ashelabelledit,wasdevotedtogeology;theother,‘B’,washeaded‘Zoonomia’anddevotedtothelawsoflife.1Itisthefirsttwodozen44CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nLondonnotebookprogrammesandprojects45pages(B1–24)ofentriesinBthatshowuswhatcomprehensiveandsubversiveconceptionsDarwinhadbeendevelopingoverthefourmonthssinceMarch.Forinthesepages,inasingle,sustainedspellofwriting,Darwinoutlinesanentiresystemofargumentationstruc-turedtoconformtotheprecedentsetby‘theLamarckiansystem’–withits‘transmutationofspecies’–aspresentedandrejectedbyCharlesLyellin1832,inthesecondvolumeofhisPrinciplesofGeology.BwaseventuallyfollowedbyC,whichwasfilledbyJuly1838.ItwasthenthatDarwinopenedbothD,asuccessortoC,andM;withMdevotedto‘metaphysics’,meaningnot,asithadofold,thetheoryofbeing,but,asithadcometomeanmoreandmoreoverthepreviouscentury,thetheoryofmindincludingmoralityandsociality.DarwinfilledDandMatamuchfasterratethanbefore.Successors,EandN,werebegunatthebeginningofOctober,1838andcontinueduntilthenextsummer,1839.Sincethe1960s,studyofthesenotebooksandassociatedmanu-scriptshasbeentransformingtheunderstandingofDarwin’sen-tirelifeandwork,andforthreereasonsespecially.2First,Darwinkepthisnotebooktheorisingsecretfromevenhisclosestfriends;sohisvoluminouscorrespondencethrowslittledirectlightonthelifeofhismind.Second,whereasolderbiographiesfollowedDarwin’softenseriouslymisleadingautobiographyinlookingattheyoungmanasaprecursorofthelater,publishedauthor,thispracticeisnowrejected.Forthearrowsofcausation,explanationandnarra-tionobviouslyrequirethattheLondonDarwinshouldbereadasapostcursoroftheEdinburgh,CambridgeandBeagleDarwin,andtheDarwinofthepublishingyearsasthepostcursorofthecovertnote-booktheorist.Third,studiedasproductsoftheirtimeandplace–Londoninthe1830s–Darwin’smostinfluentialthoughtscanbesetintheiroriginalcontexts.NolegendoftheLondonDarwinasanisolated,secretiverecluseisremotelysustainable.Secretive,yes,butisolatedrecluse,no.Hereadvoraciously,onallkindsofsubjectswithinandbeyondthesciences;buthealsometandtalkedwithmanykindsofpeople.Hemovedinseveralcircles,someformalsuchastheGeologicalSociety,someinformalsuchasthecoterieofhisbrother’sfriends,whoincludedprominentliteraryandpolit-icalfigures.3Farfromfosteringonlynarrowconcernswithtextualminutiae,studyingDarwin’searlyunpublishedwritingscanpromptCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n46jonathanhodgereappraisalsofthewidestandmostchallenginghistoriographicalissues,asinothercases–MarxandFreudmostconspicuously.ThischapterseekstobringoutthescopeandcharacterofDarwin’szoonomicaltheorisinginthenotebookyears,1837–9;toshowhowthetheoryofnaturalselectionwasconstructedovertheautumn,winterandspringmonthsof1838–9;toindicatehowDarwin’spub-lishedwritingdevelopedfromtheworkofthenotebookyears;andtosuggestareinterpretationofthesocialandeconomicalignmentofDarwin’sscience.iispring1837:meetingasystemicchallengeDarwin’svoyagearoundtheworldendedwithseveralmonthsmostlyatsearatherthanonland,and,evenmorethanbefore,spentreading,writingandreflectingratherthanexploring,observingandcollect-ing.Ingeologyhistheoreticalspeculationshadbecomeglobal,asheconcludedthattheearthatanyonetimehadlargeareasundergo-ingsubsidenceofthesurfacewhileotherareasareelevated,allbyroving,untiringagenciesacting,alaLyell,withuniformintensityon`averagethroughavastpastandontoanindefinitefuture.Darwin’stheoryofcoralislandstookitsplaceinthiscomprehensivescheme;coralislandsbeingformed,notasLyellhadsaidinelevations,butinslowsubsidences.Thetheorylay,then,attheintersectionofthetwomainclustersofDarwin’spreoccupationsasascientifictheorist:hisLyellianpreoccupationswiththestablybalancedcausesofterrestrialchangeinthephysicalandorganicworlds;andhisGrantianpreoc-cupationswithloweranimalgrowthandreproduction(‘generation’)andwithindividualversusassociatedorcoloniallife,preoccupa-tionsgoingbacktohisapprenticeshiptoRobertGrantininvertebratezoologyatEdinburgh.AlthoughcounteringLyell’sspecificviewsoncoralislands,Darwinwasconforminghimselftothemaster’sidealsfortheorisingingeologicalscience.Likewise,atthesameintersec-tion,Darwin’sgenerationaltheoryofspeciesextinctions–throughexpiryofalimitedvitaldurationforeachspecies–heldsinceearly1835,counteredLyell’sviewofextinctionsascausedbyupsetstolocalcompetitive,geographicalbalances,upsetsinitiatedbyclimatechanges,invasiveimmigrationsandthelike.Darwin’stheorywas,however,explicitlyconformedbyhimtoLyell’scontroversialinsis-tencethatthebirthsanddeathsofspecies,theexchangesofnewCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nLondonnotebookprogrammesandprojects47speciesforold,weregoingoncontinuallythroughoutalltimespast,present,andsotoofuture;whilebarriersandavenuestospeciesmigrations,suchasmountainrangesorlandbridges,werenolesscontinuallyformedanddestroyedbytheconstant,gradualactionofigneousandaqueousagencies.4ForDarwin,asforLyell,thegeologiststudiesthegeography–oflife,landandsea–inthosemodificationswroughtovertimebyuniformlyactingcausesthathavemadethehistoryrecordedintherocks.Inhisgeologist’shistoricalgeographyforplantandanimalspecies,Lyellhadofferednoaccountofwhatonemightseeifthebirthorcreationofaspeciescamewithinone’sexperience.However,hehy-pothesisedthateachspeciesoriginatedinoneplace,notmany,andasasinglefirstpairorlonehermaphrodite,andthattheplaceofori-ginwasdetermined,providentially,byadaptationalconsiderationsalone;eachspeciesbeingintroduced,then,atthemostsuitableplaceatthattime,initssoil,climateandintheanimalandplantlifealreadythere.So,conversely,anyregionhasreceivedthoseendemicspecies,andhencetoothosegenera,familiesandordersofspeciesthatcouldbestflourishintheconditionsthere.Onceoriginated,anyspeciesmultipliesinnumbers,extendsitsrangeandvariesinadapt-ingtonewcircumstances;butthevariationislimitedsoasnevertoleadtoanewspeciesarisingbythemodificationofanoldone,paceLamarckandother‘transmutationists’whohadurgedtheun-limitedmodifiabilityofspeciesinchangingcircumstances.ForLyell,newspeciesariseindependentlyofanyothers,asspecialindependentcreations.5JustwhenandwhyDarwinbegantodisagreewiththisLyellianac-countoftheoriginofspecieshasproveddifficulttodiscern.Ononereconstruction,hemaywellhavefirstfavouredthetransmutationofspeciesafewmonthsbeforelandingbackinEngland,whenpon-deringthedistributionofcertainbirdspecieslivingonthemainlandofSouthAmericaandstudiedcloselyearlierinthevoyage.How-ever,anyfavouringoftransmutationbeforehisreturnwasprobablytentativeandlimited,fornoexplicitelaborationofsuchacommit-mentsurvives.Bycontrast,inMarch,herecordedtransmutationistreflectionsthatarefarfromtentative.HehadnowreceivedRichardOwen’sauthoritativejudgementsonhisSouthAmericanmammalfossilspecimensandevenmoredecisivelyJohnGould’sonhisbirdspecimens,especiallythosespecimensfromtheGalapagosIslands.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n48jonathanhodgeTheprimaryissuewasforDarwinraisedbythecloseresemblancebetweenmanybirdspeciesthatGouldsaidwerepeculiartotheGalapagosandspeciesonthemainland–speciesoftenofgeneracon-finedtoSouthAmericaoratleasttotheNewWorld.AsDarwinnowthought,theseresemblancesdefiedanyexplanatoryappeal,suchasLyellwouldmake,toaprincipleofadaptationtoconditionsattheplaceoforigin;becausetheconditionsontherainy,forestedmainlandweresodifferentfromthoseonthearid,barrenislands.Why,despitethisdifferenceinconditions,hadthenewspecies–originatingonthenewislandlandraisedfrombeneaththeoceanseas–resembledcloselyspeciesalreadylivingonthenearest,older,continentalland?Theresemblanceswereexplicablebyhereditywithmigrationandtransmutation;as,likewise,withtheresemblancebe-tweentheextinctandextantmainlandmammalspecies.Ancestralheredityandadaptivemodificationcanexplainwhatadaptationalonecannot.6DarwinsawaparallelbetweenthisdisagreementwithLyellandhisearlieroneoverextinction.Speciesdeathsfromtheexpiryoflim-itedspeciesvitaldurationswerehisalternativetotheLyellianfail-uresofspeciestoadapttonewconditions.Likewise,agenusorfamilymaybeunrepresentedonacontinenttodaynotbecauseitsspeciesareilladaptedtoconditionsthere,butbecausenodescendantsofthesinglespeciesancestraltothegrouphaveyetmigratedthere.Speciesareadaptedtotheirlocations,buttheoriginalabsencesofsupra-specificgroupsfromtheseregionsarenotexplicable,anymorethanareextinctions,byexclusivereferencetoadaptiveconsiderations.Generally,then,ancestryandsotransmutationaswellasadapta-tionhasdeterminedthetimingandplacingofthecominginandgoingoutofspeciesontheLyellianearth’ssurface.Forextinctions,Darwin–drawingyetfurtheronhisGrantianpreoccupationswithgeneration–nowdefendslimitedvitaldurationsforspecies,asforplantgraftsuccessions,byinsistingthatallgeneration,sexualorotherwise,hasacommonfeatureinproceedingbydivision.Hedoesnot,however,goontointegratehisnewcommitmenttospeciesoriginationsbytransmutationwithhisviewsongeneration.7TheseMarch1837reflectionsarehighlytheoretical,abstractandgeneral,buttheyarelimitedinwhattheyengage.Confinedtocom-monancestryanddescentwithadaptivediversificationwithingen-era,familiesandorders,theydonotconsiderhowchangemightgooveranunlimitedlylongrun,northereforehowchangeandprogressCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nLondonnotebookprogrammesandprojects49havegonefromtheearliestlifeofalluptothearrivalinrecenttimesofmanhimself.ItisinthenextfourmonthsthatDarwindoesmakethemomen-tousmovetotreatingallthesemostcomprehensiveandcontro-versialissuesinanexplicit,systemicway.Surprisingly,thereisnobiographicaltraditionofconfrontingthefullforceoftheinevitablequery:Whydidhe,howcouldhe,dothis?Adocumentarydifficultymaymakethequeryhardertoanswerbutitdoesnotabsolvebiographyfromtheattempt;foralmostnodocumentssurvivefromthesefourmonthsthatrecordhowthetransitionwasmotivatedandmade;anditmaybethatDarwincommittedfewsuchreflectionstopaper,desperatelybusyashewaswithpreparingforpublicationhisJournalofResearchesintotheGeologyandNaturalHistoryoftheVariousCountriesVisitedbyH.M.S.Beagle(1839).ItisthentotheJuly1837openingofNotebookBitselfthatonehastoturn,expoundingasitdoestheoutcomeofthistransition.Thisexpositionshowsthatonehas,morethananythingelse,tolooktoDarwin’srelationsatthistimewithfoursourcesofprecedentalinstructionandinspiration:Lyell,Lamarck,Grantandhisowngrandfather,ErasmusDarwin.Lyellhadinsistedthatanyonefavouringthetransmutationofspecieshadtoconsiderallthefurtherissues,aboutspontaneousgenerations,life’sprogressfrommonadstomammalsandanapean-cestryforman,raisedbyLamarck’sentiresystem.Lyell’sinsistencewasmeantasawarning;butDarwintookitasachallengedefin-inghissystemicagenda.Butwhyshouldhebemovedtomeetthischallenge?Adecadebefore,GranthadnotonlygivenDarwinpre-occupationswithgenerationtolasthimalifetime,hehadsurprisedhimwithexplicitadmirationforLamarck’sviews.WhileGranthadhadnonewdirectrolesinDarwin’sthinkingsincethen,hehadevidentlyencouragedhisproteg´ewhenatEdinburghtostudythe´writings,especiallytheZoonomia(1794–6),ofanotherwhomGrantadmiredmuch:Darwin’sgrandfather,anauthoroftenassociatedwithLamarck’sviewssincehealsohadupheldanatural,prolongedproductionofthehighestfromthelowestlifeandanapeancestryforman.Theyoungstudentgrandsonhadread,too,abiographyofErasmusDarwin,sobeginninghalfacenturyoffascination–evenidentification–withhisforebearmarkedeventuallybythewritingofanewbiographicalmemoir.8Inthesummerof1837,henotonlytookZoonomiaashisowntitleandhenceforthhabituallycomparedCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n50jonathanhodgehisthoughtswiththatbook’steachingsonlifeandmind,hewasalsosoontheorisingthattheverypurposeofsexualgeneration,itselfthesinequanonforalladaptiveandprogressivechangeinlife,wastoen-ableanimalstotransmittheirconstitutionalcharactersnotmerelytotheirchildrenbutalsotheirgrandchildren.SeeinghowthegrandpaternalprecedentmovedDarwintotakeupLyell’schallengeindicateswhereDarwin’sagendawaslocatedforhimsocially.AlthoughnotoriousinconservativeandorthodoxcirclesforhissympathieswiththeFrenchRevolutionandhisthreatstobiblicalreligion,ErasmusDarwinhadneverbeenseenbyhisownfamilyasaskeletonintheircloset.Onthecontrary,hisnamewascel-ebratedandhisbookscherished,mostdecisivelybyhisson,CharlesDarwin’sreveredfather,amanhischildrenknewtobereligiouslynobeliever.Thegrandfather’sviews,farfrombeingdissociatedfromthefamily’shighsocialrankandexceptionalwealth,werethen,forthegrandson,fullyconcordantwiththeirgentlemanlystatusandcontinuingassimilation–throughmarriages,friendshipsandmoretangibleinvestmentsinextensivetownandcountryproperty–tothoseranksofthelandedgentrystandinginthehierarchyofna-tionalsocietyjustbelowthearistocracyproperanddistinctlyabovethosemercantileburghersandothersknowntotheFrenchasthebourgeoisie.ForDarwintobeinspiredbythefamily’sprecedentinmeetingthechallengeintheresponsemadetoLamarckbyLyell–himselfaprominentpractitioneroflanded,gentryscience–wastoaffirmaconcordancebetweenthisintellectuallifeandthiseconomiclivelihood.iiitheopeningofnotebookb,july1837:aninauguralsketchofasystemanditsfirstrevisionsLamarck’sownarticulationofhissystemmadeprimarytheactionoffluidswithinalllivingbodies,actionsconstitutinglifeitselfandproducingarecurrentescalationoforganisationupaseriesofclassesandlargefamiliesfrommonadstomammals.Adaptiveresponsestochangingexternalcircumstancesaccountedforramifyingdepar-tures,withinclasses,fromthisserialprogression.Theindefinitemu-tabilityofspecieswas,then,makingpossiblebothlinearprogressandarboriformdiversification.BycontrastLyell’sexpositionofthesystemopenswiththeunlimitedmutabilityofspeciesadaptingCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nLondonnotebookprogrammesandprojects51tochangingconditionsallowingaramifyingcommondescent,notmerelyforfamiliesorordersofspeciesbut,ultimately,foralllifefromasingle,commonancestralorigin.ThesecondpartofLyell’sexpositionthenpresentstheprogressfrommonadstomammals,itsinternalcauses,andeventualoutcomeintheascentofman.Darwin’ssystemicsketchopeningNotebookBlikewiseonlyintro-ducesprogressfrommonadstomammalsandmaninitssecond,final,part.Forthefirstparttakesuptwopriortasks:explaininghowthepowerspeculiartoallsexualgenerationmakepossibleadap-tivechangesinalteringcircumstancesandsotheformationofnewspeciesfromold;andexplaininghowdivergentreiterationsofsuchspeciesformationsentailoveraeonsacommondescentforfami-liesandclasses,soprovidingexplanationsforthosegeographicalandpalaeontologicalgeneralisationsaboutspeciesthatremainin-explicableifspeciesaresupposedtohaveariseninindependentcre-ationswhosetimingandplacinghavebeendeterminedbyadapta-tionalconsiderationsalone.Afterthisfirstpart,correspondingtothefirstpartofLyellonLamarck,Darwingoestohissecondpart,againmatchingLyellonLamarck,toconsidertheprogressivetendenciesraisinglifefrommonadic,infusorialbeginningsuptomammalianperfection.However,heinvokesnoadditionalinternalcausesmak-ingforprogress,assumingratherthattheseprogressivetendenciesarisefromadaptivechangesandsofromthesamepowersofsexualgenerationinvokedinhissketch’sveryfirstsentences.9Thosepowers,Darwinarguedthere,arisefromthetwofeaturesdistinguishingallsexualfromanyasexualgeneration:maturationintheoffspringproducedandthemating,crossing,oftwoparents.Thefirstisinnovativeinenablingnewadaptivevariationstobeacquiredinalteredcircumstances;thesecondiscounterinnovativewhenoffspringareincharacterintermediatebetweentheirtwopar-ents.Migrationandisolationofafewindividualsandconsequentinbreedinginnewcircumstancescancircumventthiscounterinno-vativeactionofcrossing,andsoallowanewvarietytoform,andthendivergesufficientlyfromtheparentstockastobecomeeven-tuallyintersterilewiththatparentstockandsonomerevarietybutanewspecies.Itistheramifyingreiterationsofsuchspeciesforma-tionsthatmakepossibletheadaptivediversificationofafamilyorclassfromitscommonancestralspecies.However,thisargumentation,inDarwin’sfirstpart,doesnotresolvealltheissuesengagedinhissecondpart.HereallchangeCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n52jonathanhodgeisnotonlyadaptivebutalsoprogressive.Somelowlyspeciesliv-inginconstantconditionsmaynotchangeatall;whileotherspeciesdosoonlyslowly.Thereisnonecessitationofaninvari-ablerateofchangenorthenofprogress.Withinanygroup,highex-tinctspeciesproducedbyfast-changinglinesofdescentcan,then,besucceededbylowerspeciesbranchingoutfromold,slow,lowlines.Iframifiedandvariedinrateaccordingtocircumstances,atendencyforprogressinalladaptivespeciesformationscanac-commodateanyregressionsinthepalaeontologicalsuccessionsofsupraspecificgroups.DarwinfollowsLamarckinhavingprogressinitiatedbymonadsproducedallthetimeinspontaneousgener-ations;but,unlikeLamarck,hesupposesthatthelifetimeofanymonad’sentireissue,althoughvast,islimited.Sothoselinesoflifethathavechangedandthereforeprogressedmostmusthavechangedmostquickly;hencemammalspecieshave,asLyellhadnoted,shorterspecieslifetimesthanmolluscsdo;hencetooamongspeciesofhigheranimalstherearemoregapsofcharacterfrommoreextinctions.Speciesdeathsbyextinctionsarecompensatedforbysplittingsandbranchings,sothatthetotalnumberofspeciesis,asinLyell,constantonalongrunaverage.Althoughthebuddingsofthetreeoflifearedependentoncontingentgeographicalcircumstancesandsoirregular,thereisatendencytowardsthreefolddiversifica-tionsintoaquatic,aerialandterrestrialwaysoflife;ifadominantoneofthese,theterrestrialsay,hasfurtheraquaticandaerialissuethenatendencyforgroupstohavefivesub-groups–astheso-calledquinariantaxonomiststaught–isexplained.SuchisDarwin’sinauguralsketchofazoonomicalsystem(B1–24).Strikingly,hesoonrevisesconsequentiallynotthefirstpart(fromsexualgenerationtospeciesformationandbiogeography)butthesecondpartonmonads,progressandthetreeoflife.Forhequicklyrejectsthelimitedmonadlifetimeasentailingfalselytheeventualsimultaneousextinctionsofallthespecieswithinonefamilyoror-der.Hethenhastofindanotheraccountofthecorrelationbetweengreatercharactergaps,morebranchedaffinities,shorterspecieslife-timesandhighergradesoforganisation.Reinterpretingthecorrela-tion,heconcludesthatgapswithinandbetweengroupscorrelatenotwiththeorganisationalperfectionofthegroupsbutwiththeirtaxonomicwidth.For,inthebuddingsandsplittingsinthetreeofspeciesbranchings,whenoneancestralspecieshasadozenCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nLondonnotebookprogrammesandprojects53descendentspecies,theremustbeadozenlinesendingwithoutsplit-tinginextinctions,giventhatthetotalspeciesnumberisnotincreas-ing.Inthegreatermultiplyingofspeciesinthediversifyingdescentofalargegroup,aclass,say,ratherthanameregenus,therewillbevastlymoreextinctionsandsomoregapsincharacter,withinandbetweensuchgroups.Withthisnewversionofthetreeoflife,anyspecialpropertiesthemonadshadareexplanatorilyredundantandtheyarehenceforthnolongerinvoked.Forwhatremains,foralltimessincetheearliestlifeonearth,isthemultiplicativeanddiversifyingsplittingandbranch-ingofsomespeciesandtheextinctionsofothers.Inthisarboriformprocess,anyspeciesasaquasi-individualisborn,livesanddiesbutonce;andsolikewiseanysupraspecificgroupissuingfromitssingle,ancestralspecies.Moreover,onlyonelineofspeciesinanancestralgrouphashaddescendantsinanyparticularoffspringgroup,sothereisnogeneraltendencyforfishspecies,say,tohavequadrupedde-scendants.Onelineoffishspeciesdidsoonce,duepresumablytoexceptionalcircumstances,asalltheresthavenot.Darwin’snewtreeoflifewithitstreatment,atonceLyellianandGrantianinitsresources,ofspeciesasgenerating,dividingandmultiplyingquasi-individuals,hasnowdepartedfundamentallyfromanyscheme,suchasLamarck’s,ofrecurrentescalationsoflifethroughagivenarrayofparticulartaxonomictypeseachdistinguishedbyitsownpeculiarorganisationalstructure(B25–44).Andso,indeed,willDarwinun-derstandhistreefortherestofhisownlife.Forhehasnowreached,inthesummerof1837,anabstract,referentiallyanonymousschemeliketheonefamiliarfromthesoleillustrationintheOrigin,labelled,asisthatdiagram,notwiththenamesofparticulargroups–fishorfinchesorwhatever–butonlywithlettersandnumbersrepresent-ingitsschematicthemesaboutthecumulativearboriformoutcomefromthebirths,livesanddeathsofspeciesintheindefinitelylongrunoftimespastandpresent.ivfromsummer1837tospring1838:developingthetheoryofadaptivespeciesformationsAsDarwincontinuedhissystemiczoonomicaltheorisingoverthecomingmonths,heformulatedafurtherproject:apromissoryprospecttobemadepossiblebywhathewasdoing,butnottobeCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n54jonathanhodgeactuallypursued,onlycontemplatedasafutureagenda.Thestruc-tureofthisprospectiveprojectwastakendirectlyfromtheprecedentsetbythecustomaryinterpretationofthemostprestigiousphysicalscienceoftheday:Newtoniancelestialmechanics.Thissciencewasseentohaveathreefoldpyramidalstructure.Atthebasewerepartic-ularastronomicalobservations,suchasTychoBrahehadsupplied,ofplanetarymotions.Inthenextlevelupwerelawfulgeneralisa-tionsaboutthosemotions,mostprominentlythelawsKeplerhadfound–thattheplanetsmoveinellipses,forinstance.Theseweredescriptivenotcausallaws.Finally,atthetopleveltherearecauses:thelawfulcauses,thelawfulforcesofgravitationandinertia,whichenabledNewtontosubsumeandexplainwhatKeplerandTychohadcontributed.Darwin’spromissoryprojectwastohavesuchathreefoldstructuring.Atthebottomwouldbeassembledcasesofgeographicalseriesofcongenericspecies–casesoftwoormoreverysimilarspeciesthataregeographicalneighbours.Ontheassumptionthatnewspeciesarisefromthetransmutationofearlierones,suchageographicalseriescouldbeinterpretedasarecordofatemporalsuc-cessionwherebyonespecieshasgivenrisetoothers.Sointerpreted,suchinstancesofchangebetweenspeciesallowandsupportgener-alisationsaboutthesechanges:lawsofchangeinDarwin’sphrase,justasTycho’sinstancesofplanetarymotionenabledKeplertodis-cernhislaws.Finally,then,Darwin’sprojectwouldproceedtothethird,consummatingachievement:findinglawfulcausesofchangethatexplainthecauselesslawsbelow.Theselawfulcausesofchangewould,indeed,invoketheverylawsoflife,thelawfulcausationthatconstituteslifeitself.10Onthisprospect,then,thetheoryofadaptivespeciesformationisfacilitativeandprolegomenal;itmakespossi-bletheinterpretationofaccessiblegeographicalfactsasrecordsofchangesovertimethatwouldnototherwisebeknowable.Inthisstrategy,DarwinwasfollowingLyellianprecedents.Lyellhadinves-tigatedhowspeciesareobservablylimitedinspacetoday,soastoinfergeneralisationsaboutwhatlimitstheirdurationintimeandcausestheireventualextinctions.BecauseDarwinonlydiscussedthisprospectiveprojectbrieflyandneverworkedatcompletingit,onlyitsoutlinecharactercanbediscernedfromhisnotebooks.WhathedidworkatfromJuly1837wasimprovingthespeciesformationtheorisingbyexplainingtwopermanentchanges:adaptivedivergenceinstructuresandinstinctsCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nLondonnotebookprogrammesandprojects55andlossoffertilityincrossingswiththeparentstock.Casesofnonblendingofparentalcharacters,especiallyinhumaninterracialcrosses,Darwintookassignsofincipientconstitutionalincom-patibilitybetweentheraces.Aninstinctiveaversiontointerracialpairingsuggested,moreover,thatgreaterconstitutionaldivergencewouldbeaccompaniedbyaconsistentdisinclinationtointerbreed-ing,whichwouldthenallowconstitutionaldivergencetoproceedtoafurtherstagewhenintersterilitywouldarise.Atthisstageracialdivergencewouldhavebecomespeciesdivergence,foralltheusualcriteriaforspecificdistinctionwouldhavebeenmet(B33–4;B120).Thislineofthoughtgotheavysupport,inDarwin’sview,whentheamateurornithologistWilliamYarrelltoldhimthatwhentwobreedsofdomesticanimalsarecrossed–twobreedsofdogs,say–theoff-springhavethecharactersoftheolderbreed.Darwinwastoelaboratemanycorollariesfromthisgeneralisation,whichhewoulddignifyasYarrell’slaw.Hesoontookittoshowthatoversuccessivegen-erationsanyhereditarilyperpetuatedcharactersbecamemoreandmorefirmlyandpowerfullyembeddedinthehereditaryconstitu-tion,sothatablendingconstitutionalcompromisebetweentwoveryoldbreedsisimpossible,andthat,throughanaturalcoordinationofmindandbody,theywouldbeinstinctivelyaversetointerbreeding.11Thisreflectiongavehimanewwayofcomparingandcontrastingspeciesformationinthewildandraceformationindomesticatedspecies;andsoanewwaytocounterLyell’sextensiveinvocationsofdomesticbreedformationindiscreditinganytransmutationsofspecies.Somebreedsofdog,forexample,thataremarkedlydifferentinsize,buildandhabits,interbreedreadilyandsuccessfully,Darwinreflected;whereaswildspeciesdifferingtothatextentdonot.Hetookitthatdomesticationitself,thisunnaturalcondition,vitiatedtheinstinctiveaversiontointerbreedingthatnaturallyinthewildwouldaccompanysuchadegreeofdivergenceinstructuralandha-bitualcharacters.Onthisreasoning,asDarwinsawit,conspecificdomesticraceswereprovidinganalogicalsupportforhistheoryofspeciesformationinthewild.Fordog,sheepandcattlebreeds,say,showedhowcharacterdivergencebetweenvarietiescouldariseoveralongsuccessionofgenerations,adivergencewiderthanmanywildcongenericspeciesshowed;and,onthevitiationofinstinctsunderdomesticationpremise,theyconfirmedthatinthewildsuchvari-etieswouldnotinterbreedandsowouldnotbecountedbynaturalistsCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n56jonathanhodgeasvarietiesbutasgoodspecies.So,theveryabsenceofverydistinctvarietiesinwildspeciesisevidencethatvarietiesinthewild,unlikeracesunderdomestication,dobecomespeciesbyceasingtointer-breedandthengoingontobecomeincapableofinterbreeding.Fromtheearlymonthsof1838,Darwinpersistentlydrewacon-trastbetweentwosortsofdomesticraces:naturalracesorvarietiesandartificialones.Thenaturalvarietiesareduetonaturalcausesratherthantohumanartifice.Suchnaturalvarietiesarelocalvari-eties,isolatedregionallysoasnottobeinterbreedingwithothers,anddistinguishedbycharactersthataroseastheyadaptedslowlyovermanygenerationstolocalconditionsandcircumstances.Bycontrastartificialvarietiesareoftenmonstrous,distinguishedbyvariationsthathavearisenasrare,maturationalaccidents;andthesevariationshaveonlypersistedthankstothehumanartofpicking,selectivebreeding,thathasmaderaces,ofteninafewgenerations,whichcouldneverbeformedandflourishwithoutbenefitofthathumanart.AsDarwinreadabouttheartofselectivebreeding,hebecamemoreconvincedatthistimethatspeciesformationinthewildwastobecomparedwithnaturalvarietyformationindomesticatedspeciesandcontrastedwiththemakingofartificialvarieties.Darwin’sviewofspeciesformationwasalwaysthatitwasanadaptiveachievement.Ratherthanbecomingextinct,dyingwithoutissue,aspeciesmaysucceedinadaptingsufficientlytonewcircum-stancestogiverisetooneormoreoffspringspecies.Darwincametocontrastadaptivevariationsinindividualswithmonstrousvaria-tions.Whenapuppymovestoacoldclimateandgrowsthickerfurthanitsparents,thatisanadaptation.Thevariationisinducedbythesurroundingconditionsandisadvantageous.Bycontrast,apuppybornwiththickfurinawarmercountryisamonstrousvariation:itisaresponse,inasenseanadaptiveresponse,torare,unhealthycon-ditionswithinthewomb.Bothadaptiveandmonstrousvariationsaremadepossiblebysexualgeneration;butonlytheadaptivevari-ationscontributetospeciesformation;rare,monstrousvariationsareblendedoutincrossingandarelessabletosurviveandprocre-ateanyway.Moreandmore,Darwincametoseeadaptivestructuralvariationsasinitiatedbychangesinhabitsandsointheuseofor-gans.Ifjaguars,inhisexample,takeupswimmingforfishpreywhentheircountrybecomesflooded,thenanewvarietydistinguishedbywebbedfeetcouldarisethroughtheinheritanceofthisacquiredCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nLondonnotebookprogrammesandprojects57character.Thiswebbed-footexemplarinstantiatedforDarwinhislong-standingviewofthreefolddiversificationsintoaerial,aquaticandterrestrialwaysoflife.Suchwebbed-footexemplarswerepromi-nentinLamarckandinLyell’sepitomeofhim,too.ForDarwin,theinitiationofstructuralchangebyhabitchangecomplementedhisviewofinstinctiveaversionstointerbreedingasinitiatingeventualspeciesformation(C62–6and82–5).vfromsummer1837tosummer1838:thetreeoflife,progressandspeciespropagationThemodificationsDarwinwasmakingtohistheoryofspeciesfor-mationorspeciespropagationdidnotinthemselvescallforfur-therrevisionstothetreeoflifeastherepresentationofhowthesepropagationsproliferatedoverlongaeons.Fromasearlyasthesum-merof1837,thetreewasconceivedasasexuallygrowing,inthatagroupofoffspringspeciesissuedfromasingleparentalspeciesnotfromapairingoftwo.However,speciespropagationswereinasensequasi-sexual,inthataspecieschanginginresponsetoal-teredcircumstanceswas,asDarwinsawit,quasi-matingwiththosefreshcircumstances.Withouttheinfluenceoffreshcircumstances,thespecieswoulddiechildless,withnosuccessoroffspringspecies,whenitslimitedvitaldurationexpired,likeanasexualtreegraftingsuccession.Conversely,justassuchanasexualsuccessioncanavoidchildlessdeaththroughafreshsexualunion,soaspeciesissavedfromextinction,deathwithoutissue,byitsquasi-sexualinteractionwiththosecircumstances(B61–72).TheseanalogiesofDarwin’sdonotmakethegrowthofthetreeoflifeanalogoustothematurationofasingleorganism,forinnosensehasthetreegrownupmaturationallysincetheCarboniferousageorindeedanyearliertimeinthepast;grownyes,butnotgrownup.Northenisthisunendinggrowthseenasfulfillinganyoriginalmat-urationaldestinyorcompletinganypriorplanfinallyconsummated,say,withman’sarrival.Theconstructionofthetreeasarepresen-tationofthehistoryfacilitatednosuchinterpretationsofit.And,indeed,Darwinneverreviseditsoastomakeitdoso.However,heremainsthroughoutthenotebookyearsandbeyondseriouslycom-mittedtoprogressinthehistoryoflifeifnottoanycompletion,maturationalorotherwise.Herehehad,ashewasveryaware,toCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n58jonathanhodgeworryaboutchallengingLyell,whohadopposedallclaimsthatthefossilsevidencedaprogressioninthecreationofthemaintypesoflife.OnewayDarwincouldavoidadirectchallengewastotakehistreegrowthasarepresentationonlyofthosechangessincethetime–wheneverthatmighthavebeen–whentheearthwasfirststockedwithallthosemaintypes.However,inacceptingthatindividualembryonicmaturations(‘ontogenies’inthelaterjargon)recapitulateallpastancestralchanges(‘phylogenies’),hehadtocontemplateanearthwhenthereptileancestorsoftoday’smammalshadnotyethadanymammaldescendants,anearthwhichwas,moreover,paceLyell,notfitperhapsformammals,fromtoolittlecoolingfromanoriginalmoltenstate.Again,althoughreluctanttoassumethattheeventualformationofmanwithhisdistinctivemorallifewasthesolepurposeofalltheprior,prehumanprogressoflife,hewasdrawntoassumethatitwasonepurposeoftheinstitutionbyGodofthoselawsofgenerationthatmadethatprogressnotjustpossiblebutinevitableifnotinvariable(B49;E48–9).AdecisionDarwinwasmakinginthesummerof1838servedtosegregatethesecommitmentsconcerningprogressfromtheformula-tionofhistheoryofspeciespropagationitself.Heacceptedtheviewthatideallyatheoryofferedtoexplaincertainkindsoffactsshouldbesupportedintwoways.Itshouldbesupportedbothindependentlyofthosefactsitisbeingusedtoexplainandbyshowinghowwellitdoesexplainthem.12InconformitywiththisidealandsotoowithstructuralprecedentsinhisJuly1837sketchandinLyell’sversionofLamarck,Darwinresolvedtoargueforhisspeciespropagationtheoryintwoways.First,hewouldargueforitbycitingthepeculiarpowersofsexualgeneration,includingYarellianconstitutionalembedding,andbycitingthediversificationofdomesticatedspeciesintonaturalvarieties.Herethenhewouldbeestablishingtheexistenceinnatureofthesecausesandtheiradequacy,theircompetence,tobringaboutadaptivespeciesformationsinanylongrunoftime,soastoyieldsuchspeciespropagationsanddiversificationsasthetreeofliferep-resented.Then,inasecondbodyofargumentationhewouldshowhowthistheorycouldexplain,couldconnectandmakeintelligible,manydifferentkindsoffactsaboutspecies:biogeographicalfacts,palaeontologicalfacts,comparativeembryologicalfactsandsoon.ThistwofoldstructureandstrategyofargumentationisverymuchwhathewouldadoptinarguingforhistheoryofnaturalselectionCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nLondonnotebookprogrammesandprojects59intheOrigin.13AndDarwin’scommitmenttoitwasinplacemanymonthsbeforehehadfirstformulatedthattheory.Oneconsequence,inthesummerof1838,ofdesigninghisargumentationalcaseinthisway,wasthatthoseissues–concerningthefirstformsoflife,thesubsequentprogressinlife’sascentandanycorrelationthatascentmayhavehadwithanycoolingandcalmingofanearthoriginallynebularandmolten–wouldappearnotinthepresentationofthespeciespropagationtheoryitself,norinpresentingitsevidentialcre-dentialsindependentlyofitsexplanatoryvirtues;butlateronintheexposition,whenthosevirtueswereelaboratedforbiogeogra-phy,palaeontology,embryologyandsoon.Inthesummerof1838,Darwinwasonlyresolvingtowriteinthiswayonhistheory’sbehalf;hisnotebookscontainnosustainedactinguponthatresolution.Whattheydoshow,however,isthathewas,muchmorethanbefore,seeinghisvariousconclusionsondiversetopicsasbeing,eventually,potentiallypublishable,publicscience.visummer1838:earth,lifeandmindThesummerof1838wasaremarkableperiodinDarwin’slifeandwork.Hecontemplatedmarriageforthefirsttime,itseems,evendrawinguptheprosandconsinawrittennote.Hebegantodatesomeoftheentriesinhisnotebooks.Hewroteanautobiographicalmemoirofhisyoungestyears.Hebegankeepingarecordofhishealthandtheanxietiesitgavehim.Anew,heightenedawarenessofhisownvitality,mortalityandsexualityshowsitselfinandbetweenthelinesofmuchthathewritesfromnowon.Hisnotebookworkbecomesmoreconcernedwithtakingstockandassessingwherehestands.Heisexplicitinencapsulatinghisviewsonthisorthatsubjectbysummarisingwhathis‘theory’says,histheoryofsexualdifferentiation,say,orofgeographicaldistribu-tion.InJuly,openinghisnewNotebookM,on‘metaphysics’,herecordsseveraldozenpagesofanecdotes,generalisationsandab-stractreflectionsarisingfromdiscussionswithhisfatheronthemindinhealthanddisease,onreasoning,memoryandmadness.InSeptember,heopensanewsectionofhisNotebookDatthebackofthatnotebook,asectiondevotedtogeneration,anenquirynowemergingasadistinctendeavourinitsownright.Herangesintoreli-gionandethicsasneverbefore,andindeedasneveragain,insofarasCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n60jonathanhodgethescope,ambitionandintensityofhisintellectualandemotionalquestioningswillnotexceedthispeakhereafter.Theearth,lifeandmindarenowallencompassedbythedivisionsofhisnotebooklabour.Ontheearth,indeed,hehadalreadyearnedareputationasapub-lishedauthorityongrandtheoreticalissues,havinginMaygonepublicwithhismostcomprehensiveclaimsabouttheearth’scrustanditsupanddownmovementsuponafluidinterior.InhisNote-bookAhenow,covertly,considerswhatnodiscipleofLyellshould:thepossiblebeginningsoftheearthandevenitsend;violatingashedoesLyell’sechoesofHutton’sinsistencethattheearthasknownfromourobservationsshowsnovestigeofabeginningandnoprospectofanend(A104–21).Darwinwill,however,neverviolatethisHuttonianproscriptioninanypublictext.Darwinhadtworeasonsfortakingupmindasaspecialsubject.First,hisgeneralaccountofadaptivechangesinallspecies,plantoranimal,hadtheirchangesinitiatedbyhabits,afacultyofmindbroadlyconstruedtoincludeevenlowlyplantlife.Second,com-mittedasalwaystocomprehendmankindinhistheoryofspeciespropagation,Darwinnowtookupthechallengeoffindingnatural,gradualcausesforthatconsciousnessandconscientiousnesscom-monlydeemeddistinctiveofourspecies.Thischallengeledhimtoengagesomelong-standingdoctrinesandtraditions.Theinheritanceofthoughtfromparentstooffspringdeniesanyequationofthoughtwithconsciousmentation,Darwinargued.Again,oneshouldlooktoouranimalancestors,not,asPlatowouldhaveus,tosomepre-viousexistenceofthesoulinheaven,forthesourceofourinnateideas.Studyingthebaboon,Darwinmuses,cantellusmoreaboutthemindthanreadingLockecan.Humanmoralitycouldhavearisen,musthaveindeed,oncethesocialinstinctswesharewithanimalswereinteractingwiththeintellect–thereasoningandmemory–possessedbyearlyhumans.Theelaborationofthistheoryrequiredin1838theinheritanceofacquiredeffectsofmentalhabits,andallDarwin’slaterversionsofthetheorywilldosotoo.Inbringingmindwithinhisscience,Darwindeclaredhimselfamaterialistandane-cessitarian(‘determinist’inlaterjargon);formentalactions,asthefunctionsofthebrain,arecausedbymaterialorganisation.And,justaschanceinthephysicalworldisnotalackofcausationbutonlyalackofknowncausation,so–Darwinisexplicit–theillusionofCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nLondonnotebookprogrammesandprojects61freewillislikewiseonlyanillusionthatthereisnocausalnecessi-tationofthefeeling,beliefordecisionenactedbythemind.Havingsubsumedmindmateriallyandcausallywithinhisscienceatthistime,Darwinneverlaterhadtoconstructnewwaystosecurethecontinuitybetweenmanandanimalsorbetweenmanandthelawfulorderofnature.14Histhoughtsaboutgenerationnowfollowedtwonewlines.15First,heconcludedthatinontogeny,andhenceinphylogeny,hermaphroditicsexprecedestheseparationinsexesfoundinhigheranimals.Second,heconsiderswhethertheeggorovuleinafemalethatisfertilisedbythemale’sinseminationmaybe,priortothatfertilisation,likeanasexualbudthatisthereforeincapableofma-turingandthroughmaturationofacquiringnovelvariationsfromtheinfluenceonitofprenatalandpostnatalconditions.Thesetwolinesofthought,onceintegrated,ledtonewextensionstothelong-standingviewthatalladaptivechangeisultimatelymadepossiblebythematurationsandmatingsdistinctiveofsexualgeneration.Theyled,too,toafreshexaminationofhowthevariationsoccurringinmaturingindividualsnowarerelatedtothosepast,longpast,pro-gressivechangesmadebytheirancestorsandrecapitulatedintheirownontogenies.Theneedtointegratetheunderstandingofadapta-tionandofprogressbecomesmoreacute.Darwin’sintegrationin-siststhatnewvariationswillhavetobeinharmonywiththeolderchangesnowbeingrecapitulated;buthedoesnotconcludefromthisthatprogressinthescaleoforganisationisduetoanyinherentten-dencythatcountersthetendencytochangeadaptivelyinchangingcircumstances,andheinsiststhatwhiletheacquisitionofheritablevariationbymaturingoffspringistheverypurposeofsexualgenera-tion,thatpurposeissometimesfulfilledbyvariationsthatmaybringneitherrisesinthescaleoforganisationnoradvantageousnewchar-acters.Thesenovelreflectionsonsexualgenerationdidnot,then,callforanyrevisionsinthespeciespropagationtheory,asDarwinhadalreadyformulateditearlierintheyear.viisummer1838:god,man,scienceandnatureWhenDarwinreflectsatthistimeonGodandman,onethemedom-inates:thegreatnessofGodandbycontrastthelowlinessofman.Godis,especially,toogreattobeproperlypresumedtointerveneinCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n62jonathanhodgenatureinspecial,miraculouscreationsofparticularspecieswiththeirdistinctivedetailedstructuresandhabits.God’sgreatnessismanifestinhisinstitutionofverygeneralcausallawsthatbringaboutsuchproductionsnaturallyandlawfully,justasphysicalsci-encehasshownplanetarymotionstobesubjecttolawfulgov-ernmentandnotmiraculousinterference.Man’slowlinessmakesitproperforhimtoseehimselfnotasanangelicspecies,butasananimalwithoutanysupernaturalsparkofdivinitythatmightputhimbeyondscientific,lawfulcausalexplanation.ThereisaGodandmentruthfullybelievethereis,butthisbelieflikeanyotheristheresultofthebrain’smaterialorganisationwhichisit-selftheoutcomeofalong,gradualimprovementofouranimalancestry.Goddesignedthelawsofnaturesoastoensurethisandalltheotheroutcomesoflife’schangesandprogress.Humanhumilityabouthumanlowlinessentails,then,thatsciencedis-closesthedesignedprovidenceofthelawfulorderofnature;butentails,too,thatthenaturalistcanneverexpecttodiscerntheDivineintentionfulfilledbyparticularstructuresorrelationsamongindividualsorspecies.ToattempttoreadtheDivineMindistoforgethowfarabovethehumblehumanitis,andtoforgethowfarbelowDivineknowledgeishumanknowledge.Thishumilityisconsistentwithcognitiveoptimismaboutnature,however.Humanbrainsandmindsarefitted,ultimatelythroughtheirimprovementinlawfullyordainedchanges,toinferfromobservationandexperiencewhatarethelawsofnature,includingthelawsoflife.Intakingthesestances,Darwinfoundencouragementandenlight-enmentinAugusteComte’sviewsandalsoinWilliamWhewell’sverydifferentviews.Comte’sthesis,thathumanthoughtaboutna-tureandmanmovesfromtheologicalthroughmetaphysical(sensutheoryofbeing)andfinallytoscientificphases,delightsDarwin,whoseeshimselftakingzoologyfromtheologytoscience.ButDar-win,unlikeComte,didnotthinkthatcausaltheoriesgivewaytoacausallawfulgeneralisationsassciencegoesfromthemetaphysicaltothescientificphase.OnDarwin’sidealofsciencetheveryobjectoftheenquiryistofindreal,true,knowncauses:lawfulcauses,ofcourse.DarwinwelcomedWhewell’sKantianinsistencethataprioriprinciples,suchastheprinciplethateveryeventhasacause,havetobebroughtpresuppositionallytotheinterpretationofexperi-enceandnotinferredasconclusionsfromexperienceifthereistobeCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nLondonnotebookprogrammesandprojects63scientificknowledge.Whewell,drawingonPlato,tooktheseprinci-plestobeDivineIdeasimplantedinman’ssoulatcreation.Darwin,invokinghisdoctrineofinstinctsashabitsbecomehereditaryoverlongsuccessionsofpastgenerations,tooktheseprinciples,aprioriastheyarenowknown,tohaveoriginatedasaposteriorigener-alisationslearnedfromearlier,ancestralexperiences.Thislearningdependedultimatelyondesignedlaws,butnotinanywaythatmademan’scapacitytodosciencedependonanysparkofsupernaturaldi-vinitymakinghisthinkingdeeplydiscontinuouswithanimalmen-tality.Indeed,manyanimalsseemtothinkinaccordwiththesesameaprioriprinciples.16NoexclusivelybiblicalbeliefhasanyauthorityinDarwin’ssci-ence;hisnotebooksmakenoappealstoOldTestamenteventsorchronologies;andtheNewTestamentiscitedforbarelymorethanitsmoralityoftreatingone’sneighbourasoneself.Moresurprisingly,Darwinconsistentlyshowsnoconcernforalifeafterdeathmadepos-siblebyanyimmortalityofanimmaterialsoul–anintensepreoc-cupationofLyellwhencontemplatingLamarck’sandlaterDarwin’sowntheories.NorisiteasytodiscernthegroundforDarwin’slackofconcernforaperson’s,evenhisown,fateafterdeath.PerhapshecountedontheUnitarianJosephPriestleyhavingbeenrightinthink-ingthatpeopleareresurrectedbodily,inalifeafterthisonethatisconsistentwithamaterialistdenialofanysouleverexistingasasep-arableimmaterialsubstance.Attheendofthenextdecade,DarwinwillbedeeplydisconcertedbytheoldChristianteachingthatdisbe-lieverssuchashisfathersufferendlesspunishmentafterdeath;buttheDarwinofthenotebookyears,althoughfullofanxietiesabouthisbodilyillsandabouttheriskfrominbreeding–hewasengagedintheautumnof1838tohiscousin–seemscontenttoleaveunexpli-catedthepossibleimportofhisscience,includinghis‘metaphysics’,fortheprospectoflifeafterdeath,anissueheknewformedtheveryrationaleforsomuchreligiousdoctrineandsentiment.17viiifromautumn1838tospring1839:theconstructionofthetheoryofnaturalselectionFromthemiddleofSeptember1838Darwin’spaceslowsstrikingly.Thetheoryofnaturalselectionemergesgradually,fromlateCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n64jonathanhodgeSeptember1838tomid-March1839,inlanguid,intermittentnote-booktheorisingwork;sodiscreditinganystereotypes–fosteredbyDarwin’slaterreminiscencesandmuchscholarshipinthesamevein–ofasinglemomentofdecisiveinsightduringintenseactivity.18Noristhisthemakingofatheorywheretherewasnonebefore.Rather,Darwinismakingsuccessivemodificationstotheearliertheoryofadaptivespeciesformation,‘mytheory’asithadlongbeencalledandwillcontinuetobeso.Despiteinnovationsonothertopics,thebusysummerof1838hadseennodirectmodifi-cationstothatearliertheory;and,conversely,overthemonthsoftheemergenceoftheconceptofnaturalselection,inchanginghismindaboutadaptivespeciesformationsDarwinkeepsconstanthisviewsonthoseothertopics,concerningtheearth,lifeandmind.Theoldtheory’snewdevelopmentsinvolvenogeneralrethinkingofthewidestagendas.Afirstmodificationaddstotheearliertheorywhilereplacingnoneofit.On28September,DarwinreflectsonhisreadingofThomasRobertMalthusonpopulation(D134–5).19HedwellsinitiallyontheimplicationsofMalthusiansuperfecundityfortheliabilityofspeciestobecomeextinctinchangingconditions.Theninjustonefinalsentenceheconsidersitsimplicationsforthespeciessurviv-ingsuchchanges.ReadinginMalthusofsomehumanpopulationsdoublinginquarterofacenturyandofMalthus’generalanalysisofthecheckstopopulation,Darwinconcludesthatallspeciesarepressingsohardonothersthatthereiseverywhereafragilecompet-itivebalancethatevenveryslightlychangingconditionscanupset,sobringingtosomespeciestotalpopulationloss.ForDarwinthisinsightallowedawholeheartedreturntoLyell’sviewofextinctions,andsoanabandonment–nevertobereversed–ofhisownview,goingbackto1835,thatsomeextinctionsatleastcamefromanexpiryoflimitedvitaldurationratherthanfromexternalcontingen-cies.Agenerationaltheorywasthusreplacedwithanecologicalone(touseananachronismforDarwin’sandLyell’sthinkingaboutthe‘economyofnature’).Somuchforthelosingspeciesthen,butwhatofthewinners?InhisclosingsentenceDarwinlookstotheminconsideringwhatis‘thefinalcause’(hisphrase)ofallthispopulationalpressing.Itis,heargues,tosortoutproper,orfitting,structureandsotoadaptstructuretothesechangesinconditions.StructureisthenadaptivelyCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nLondonnotebookprogrammesandprojects65improvedinanimalsandplants,justas,hereflects,Malthusshowshowtheenergyofancientpeopleswasprovidentiallyenhancedbylifeanddeathstrugglesasexcessivefertilityforcedtheirtribalmigra-tionsandimperialinvasionsontocommoncontestedground.ThusdoesDarwinrespondtoMalthusasonetheistextendinganother’steleologyandtheodicyforsuperfecundityandempire.ThisMalthusiansortingisproceedingbothwithinandamongspecies;butnoanalogy,evenimplicit,isdrawnwiththepickingorselectingpractisedbyhumanbreeders.NoristhereanyshifthereawayfromDarwin’sviewsonhowsexualgenerationensuresadap-tivechangeinchangingconditions.Indeed,whatDarwindwellsonoverthenexttwomonthsishowthissortingbearsontheacquiringofadvantageousvariationsinindividualmaturations,andsobearsalsoonhissustainedgeologicalpreoccupationatthistimewithrela-tionsbetweentheexchangesofspeciesandthechangesofconditionsovervastperiodsoftime.Onlyastructuralvariationthatisadap-tiveforthewholelifetimeofanindividualwill,heemphasises,beretainedandnoteliminatedintheMalthusiancrushofpopulationovermanygenerations;variationsadaptivetofoetalcircumstancesalonewillnotdoso.Retainedvariationswilleventuallybecome,byYarrellianembedding,stronglyheritableandso,notbeingreplacedbylatermodifications,canbeaccumulatedinprogressivechangesoverlongperiodsoftime.ThenewMalthusianinsightsarethusintegratedwithearlierviewsonbothadaptationandprogress.On27November,inhisNotebookN(thesequel,recall,toMonsubjectsmetaphysical),Darwinpursuesatopicdistinctfromlong-runadaptationandprogressbutbearingdirectlyuponit(N42).Forheheremakesforthefirsttimeanexplicitcontrastbetweentwoprinciplesbothcapableofexplaininghowadaptivechangeinstruc-turesandhabitscouldproceedintheshortrun.One‘principle’isfamiliarenough,indeed:anadultblacksmith,thankstotheinher-itedeffectsofhishabits,haschildren–sonsatleast–withstrongarms.Theotherprinciplehasnopreciseprecedentinanyearlierre-flections:anychildrenwhomchancehasproducedwithstrongarmsoutliveothers.Thecontrastisdirect.Chanceproductionmeanshere,asithasallalongforDarwin,productionbysmall,hiddenandrarecauseseffectiveprenatally,sothattheoppositeofchanceispostnatalhabits.Whatisnew,then,istheconvictionthatthoseproductsofchancewiththesamebenefitsastheeffectsofhabitscancontributeCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n66jonathanhodgetoadaptivechange;because,althoughrare,individualswithsuchbeneficialvariantstructureswillsurviveoverfuturegenerationsatothers’expense.However,Darwinacknowledgesadifficultyinde-cidingwhichadaptivestructures–andinstincts,becausetheseprin-ciplesapply,henotes,tobrainchanges–havebeenduetowhichofthetwoprinciples.BytheSundayafterTuesdaythe27th,heis,inE,againconsideringprinciples.Thistimethereare‘threeprinciples’andtheycan,hesays,‘accountforall’(E58).Strikingly,noneofthethreeisnewtohim:thatgrandchildrenresemblegrandfathers;thatthereisvariationinchangingcircumstances;andthatfertilityex-ceedswhatfoodcansupport.Thesethreeprinciplesareconsistentwiththeearliertwo;andDarwinmaywellhaveconstructedtheirconjunctionsoastosubsumethoseearliertwowhilecircumventingtheunresolveddifficultyofdecidingwhichadaptivechangesshouldbecreditedtowhichoneofthosetwo.SuchareadingcertainlyfitswhatDarwinwillsayintheweeks,indeeddecades,tocome.Afurtherinnovationismadewithinafewdaysperhaps,andwithinafortnightatmost.Itarises,itseems,fromDarwin’scom-paringofwildpredatorycaninespecieswithsportingbreedsamongdomesticateddogs.Strikinglyreversingwhathehasbeensayingformonths,Darwinnowdecidesthatthereisatworkinnatureamongwildspeciesaprocessof‘picking’orselectivebreedingjustasinman’smakingofvarietiesofdomesticspecies(E63).Nature’sMalthusiansortingisnowreinterpretedasnature’spicking.Heissoonarguingthatbecausenature’sselectivebreedingissovastlymoreprolonged,morediscriminatingandmorecomprehensivethanman’s,acausalanalogycanbeconformedtothetraditionalformofproportionality:thegreatercause,selectionbynature,isadequatetoproportionallygreatereffectsthantheintraspecificadaptivedi-vergenceproducedbythemuchlessercause,man’sselection;thesegreatereffectscouldinclude,then,theunlimitedinterspecificadap-tivedivergencesinthetreeoflife(E71).Speciesformationshence-fortharetobecompared,byDarwin,notasbeforewithlocal,naturalvarietiesindomesticspecies,butwithvarietiesmadebythehumanartthathasitsnaturalanalogueintheselectivebreedingentailedbythestruggleforexistence.ByMarch1839,Darwinisresolvingtoarguepubliclythat‘mytheory’ascribesspeciesformationstoanaturalprocessofselection‘analogous’toman’s(E118).Thetrans-formationsof‘mytheory’makingthisanalogyessentialtoitsveryCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nLondonnotebookprogrammesandprojects67formulationhavenowgivenitthestructureandcontentitwillhavetwentyyearslaterintheOrigin.Whatthesetransformationshavenotdoneistoresolvetheindecisionoverthetwoprinciplesof27November.Man’sselectivebreeding,Darwinwillalwaysaccept,workssometimeswithchancevariations,sometimeswiththeheri-tableeffectsofhabits.Thisselectivebreedinganalogy,likethethreeprinciples,willalways,then,subsumebothofthosetwo.Man’sandnature’sselectivebreedingdependequallyfortheirefficacyonthespecialpowersofsexualasopposedtoasexualgenera-tion.Comparingandcontrastingthetwokindsofselectivebreedingdoesnotreplacethecomparingandcontrastingofthetwokindsofgeneration.Butthetheoryofnaturalselection,asanecological–economyofnature–theorynowconstitutedbythebreedinganal-ogy,canandwillhaveitsargumentationdevelopedseparatelyfromanytheorisingaboutallgeneration.Asatheoryofthemaincauseofthegrowth,thegeneration,ofthetreeoflife,naturalselection,withitsLyellianandMalthusianstrugglesamongandwithinspecies,canthenbedetachedfromanytheoryofgenerationthatpursuesDar-win’sevenolderGrantianpreoccupations.ButbothenterpriseswillcontinuetodrawinspirationfromthegrandpaternalprecedentsetbyErasmusDarwin.ixfromthenotebookstothebooksOnecanmapDarwin’snotebookprojectsontohisbooks.NotebookAcontributestothegeologicalvolumesonSouthAmericaandoncoralandvolcanicislands.MandN,onmetaphysics,areconsum-matedmostlyinTheDescentofMan(1871)andTheExpressionoftheEmotionsinManandAnimals(1872).Thezoonomicalen-quiriesdivideintheirlegacies.Thegenerationofindividualshasitsfinalsynthesisinthehypothesisofpangenesis,apparentlyfirstformulatedin1841,butonlypublishedin1868inTheVariationofAnimalsandPlantsunderDomestication.ThegenerationofthetreeoflifebymeansofnaturalselectionhastheOrigin(1859)alltoitself.20Suchmappingsshowthatmuchzoonomicalandmetaphysicalthinkingfromthemonthsbeforetheemergenceofnaturalselec-tionwasneversetasidebutwas,rather,activelycarriedthroughbyDarwinintothepublishedworks,sometimesseemingtofituneasilyCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n68jonathanhodgewithlaterviews.Whatdoesnotsurvive,however,isanexplicitquestforthelawsoflife;thisquestbeingbarelymentionedoncenaturalselectionisfullyformulatedinthewinterandspringof1838–9.Tworeasonsforthiseclipsesuggestthemselves.First,thepromissoryprojectaimingattheselawsdependeddecisivelyonusinggeograph-icalsuccessionsovertime.Butwithnaturalselectionaquitediffer-entstrategyisadopted,astheaccessiblechangeswroughtbymanintheshortrunprovidetheinferentialavenuetonature’sworkingsoverinaccessibleaeons.Thestudyofdomesticatedspeciesdisplacesbiogeographyhere,althoughbiogeographywilllatertakeotherev-identialroles,especiallyinsupportingtheprincipleofdivergence.Second,naturalselection,althougharisingfromthelawfultenden-ciesofheredity,variationandsuperfecundity,themselvesoutcomesfromthemostgeneralgenerativepowersoflifeinnutritionandgrowth,wasneverseenbyDarwintohavealawofitsown.Therewasthennolawthatistonaturalselectionastheinversesquareofthedistancelaw–withproportionalitytomassproducts–istotheforceofgravitationalattraction.Inthatsensenaturalselectionislawless.So,further,whereNewton’sscienceinvokedanotoriouslymysteriouscause–theattractiveforceitself–butaclearanddis-tinctlaw,withDarwinitistheotherwayround:heredity,variationandsuperfecundity,andhencenaturalselection,areobvious,mani-fest,evenfamiliar,featuresofanimalandplantlife;however,theirmyriadinteractiveoutcomesinmyriadcircumstances–theendlessresultantnaturalselections–arenotsubsumablewithinanyonegeneralisation,anysinglestatementoflaw.SuchconsiderationsmayhaveendedDarwin’saimofemulatingtheNewtonianconsumma-tionofKepler’snomiclegacy.IfDarwin’spromissoryNewtonianambitionwasnotfulfilled,washenotneverthelesstheAdamSmithofthelivingworld?Inarticulat-ingatendencytoadaptivedivergence,theOrigindoesafterallinvokethecardinalSmithiandoctrineofprogressthroughthedivisionoflabour;andDarwininthe1850shadindeedstudiedtheeconomists’treatmentofsuchthemes.However,thenotebooktheorisingofthe1837–9periodisnotsoreadilyassimilatedtoanysuchprecedents.Contrarytorecentlegend,thenotebooksandotherdocumentsfromthetimeincludenosuresignsofdirectdebtstoreadingsinpolit-icaleconomyinthemonthsbeforeDarwinreadMalthus.21Whatismore,thosecharacteristicsofDarwin’stheorising–mostobviouslyCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nLondonnotebookprogrammesandprojects69hisindividualism–thatseemtoshowtracesofsuchsources,donotalwaysfitwellwiththem.ForitwasDarwin’spreoccupationwithindividualsexualgenerations,asinitiatingnewindividuallivesintheoffspringproduced,thatledhimtorefertheproductionofspeciestothepowersandactionsofindividualorganisms;andhispursuitofthispremisewasatoddswithwhatpoliticaleconomistsassumed,asDarwintookthesepowersandactionsnottobeansweringonlytoindividualself-interest,buttobelawfulprovisionsnotforthegoodofthoseindividualsthemselvesbutforthegoodofspeciesfacedwithchangingcircumstances,andsoforthegoodseventuatingfromtheprogressmadeinthelargerproliferationofthetreeoflife.Theseissuesaboutprogressandinterests,individualandother-wise,requireahistoriographyfortheideologyofDarwin’sscience.Fortheyrequire,ataminimum,thelocatingofthatscienceinrela-tiontotheEnlightenment,theFrenchRevolutionandthe‘IndustrialRevolution’(ananachronisticcategorydatingfromlateinthenine-teenthcenturyandnowsubjecttorevisionistcriticismcallingforquotationmarks);alocating,too,therefore,inrelationtoliberalism,socialismandconservatism,andinrelationtoaristocratic,bourgeoisandproletarianclassinterestsandconflicts.AsfortheEnlighten-ment,theprogrammesandoutcomesofDarwin’snotebookscienceareunequivocallycontinuouswiththeprojectsdefinitiveofthefirst,themideighteenth-century,phaseoftheEnlightenmentandareanathematoalllateeighteenth-andearlynineteenth-centurycounterings(includingromanticcounterings)ofit.22Equally,initscommitmenttogradual,adaptiveprogressDarwin’sversionofna-tureallieditselfwithreformistliberalalternativestobothsocialistrevolutionandconservativereactionaspoliticalphilosophies.So,ifoneacceptsthatconjunctionsofliberalismandtheEnlightenmentwerealsonaturallyconjoinedwithbourgeoisinterests,istherenothere,then,apresumptionthatDarwiniansciencewasbourgeoisinitsideology?Toseehowdeeplysuchapresumptioncanmisleadrequiresappre-ciatingnewemphasesinthehistoriographyofEnglishsocialandeco-nomiclife,newhistoriesoftheEnglishcapitalismsintheirlonguesdurees´.23FortheEnglishcapitalismsofthe1830sweremuchmorelikethecapitalismsoftheEnglandofthe1730sthanwasformerlyrecognised.Inthe1730sthenationaleconomywascapitalist,tri-umphantlysowiththeseeingoffofthemain,Dutchrival;butwasCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n70jonathanhodgenotpredominantlybourgeoisorindustrial–insofarasthatmeansprincipallymakinggoodsintowns,infactorieswithmachines.Likewise,then,inthe1830sthedominantcapitalismsofagriculture,banking,colonies,trading,commerceandproperty,domesticandimperial,alreadydominantacenturyearlier,continuetheirhege-mony,withthepoliticalandsocialcorollarythatthelandedaristo-craticandgentlemanly,ratherthantheurban,middle-classorbour-geoisinterests,arestilltherulingclassinterests.ThatDarwinandhisfamilyfitexactlyintothispeculiarlyEnglishpatternofascendantaristocraticandgentlemanlycapitalismsismanifest,onceonelearnstoavoidtheolder,discreditedstereotypesofthe‘IndustrialRevolution’.TheBeaglevoyage,withitsaristo-craticcaptainanditsAdmiraltymissiontoadvancetheinformalimperialopportunitiesopeningupinSouthAmerica,fitsthispatternnolessexactly.24Again,sodoDarwin’spreoccupationswithland,foodandpopulation,lyingattheintersectionofhisLyelliancon-cernswiththehistoricalgeographyofspecies’migrations,invasionsandextinctionsandhisMalthusianconcernswithsuperfecundity,tribalandimperialexpansions,struggles,defeatsandconquests.Anythoughtthatsuchpreoccupationswerebythistimefadingresiduesofanancienregime´fastbecomingpasse´canbeansweredbyreading,forinstance,inbooksofthe1830sbythemanlaterpickedoutbyMarxinCapitalasthemostinstructiveanalystofthecapitalismoftheage:EdwardGibbonWakefield.PuttingMalthustogetherwithSmith,tocounterRicardo’seconomicviews,Wakefieldandhismanyinfluentialfollowersreasserted,asMalthushimselfhad,theolderprivilegingofland,populationandfoodineconomictheoryandpractice.Theydidsoonbehalfofanewargument,widelyacteduponincomingdecades:thatEnglishcapitalism,likeanyothereventually,canonlygoforwardbygoingsideways;foritmustex-portnotonlyexcesspopulationbutcapitalandlabourthathasbe-comeunderdeployedinthemothercountry;anditmustdosobyextendingitsentiresocialandeconomicstructuretonewcolonialsettlements.There,inAustralia,NewZealandandCanada,say,withcoloniallandvalueskepthighbygovernmentintervention–thedecisivepolicyproposaloftheWakefieldschool–thedomi-nantaristocraticandgentlemanlyinterestswillbe,asinEnglanditself,properlyandprofitablypursuedtogetherwithotherinterestsdistinctiveofthemiddlingandworkingclasses.25AlertedbysuchCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nLondonnotebookprogrammesandprojects71ideologicalanalysesandprojectionsintheEnglandofthe1830s,onecanrecogniseinDarwin’saccountofnaturenottheurbansitesofmachinofacturingcapitalisminManchester,Leedsandelse-where,stilloftenmarginalastheyweretothesocial,political,eco-nomicandculturallifeofthenation.Rather,onecanrecogniseintheselectivebreedings,stockandcropimprovements,dominantspeciesandhorizontalterritorialcompetitionsoflifetheagrarian,financialandimperialwaysandmeansofthosearistocraticandgentlemanlycapitalismswhichhadfirstbecomenationallyhegemonicearlyinthepreviouscentury,werenowburgeoningevenmoreinpowerandprestige,followingthedefeatoftheFrench,andsomovingontotheirlater,Victorianpre-eminenceattheapogeeoftheBritishEmpire.26notesIamgratefultoJamesMooreandGregoryRadickfordiscussionsofthischapter,andtotheArtsandHumanitiesResearchBoardforgrantsupport.1.ForDarwin’snotebooks,seeBarrettetal.1987,CharlesDarwin’sNote-books(hereafterNotebooks).Asinthissuperbedition,referencesinthischapterwillbetothemanuscriptpagenumbers.2.TherecentbiographiesbyDesmondandMoore(1991)andBrowne(1995)haveextensivereferencestothisliterature.3.Inadditiontothebiographieslistedabove,seeManier1978andRudwick1982.4.Forfurtherdiscussion,seeSloan,thisvolume.5.ForamoredetailedanalysisoftheseviewsofLyell,seeHodge1982.SeealsoRudwick2005and2008.6.SeeRedNotebook127–32intheNotebooks.Foramoredetaileddis-cussionseeHodge1990andthearticlesbySullowaycitedtherein.7.RedNotebook132intheNotebooks.SeealsoEndersby,thisvolume.8.Browne1995,83–5.9.ForamoredetaileddiscussionofDarwin’ssketchandLyell’sexpositionofLamarck,seeHodge1982.10.ThisexplicationofDarwin’spromissoryprojectisfoundedonnumer-ouspassagesinBandC;comparingB224–7withE51–5isespeciallyinstructive.11.SeetheindexentryforYarrell’slawintheNotebooks,andEndersby,thisvolume.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n72jonathanhodge12.OnvariousaspectsofDarwin’sallegiancetothisepistemicandmethodologicalveracausaideal,seeWaters,HullandRadick,thisvolume.13.Foramoredetaileddiscussion,seeHodge2000.14.Forfurtherdiscussion,seeRichards,thisvolume,andesp.R.J.Richards1987.15.Forfurtherdiscussion,seeEndersby,thisvolume,andHodge1985.16.OnDarwinandComteseeSchweber1977.OnDarwinandWhewell,seeCurtis1987.ThesestudiesmarkedlyoverestimatetheinfluenceofComteandWhewellonDarwin.17.SeeBrooke,thisvolume.18.Foramuchmoredetailedanalysis,seeHodgeandKohn1985.OnDarwinonchancevariationandontheprobabilisticcharacterofthetheory,seeHodge1987,reprintedinHodge2008b.19.SeeRadick,thisvolume.20.SeeRichards,EndersbyandWaters,thisvolume.21.ForDarwinandthepoliticaleconomists,see,e.g.,Schweber1980andGordon1989.NotethatforAdamSmiththeprincipleofthedivisionoflabourcoveredtraditionalformsofmanufacturing–literallymakingbyhand–evenmoreobviouslythanmachinofacturing,andthatDarwin’sappealtotheprincipleinhisaccountofdivergenceamongvarietiesandspeciesdependedonhisagronomicalextensionofittosubsumethegreateryieldofplantgrowthfromapatchoflandwhenthereisagreaterdiversityofspecies.ForDarwinondivergence,seetheIntroductiontothisvolume.22.Foralternative,Romanticreadings,see,e.g.,SloanandRichards,thisvolume.23.See,e.g.,Price1999,J.C.D.Clark2000,Anderson1992,Wood1991andHudson1992forintroductions.24.Ongentlemanlycapitalismandinformalimperialism,seeCainandHopkins1993.25.See,e.g.,Semmel1970.26.OnotheraspectsoftheculturalconditioningofDarwin’stheorising,seeRadick,thisvolume.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\njimendersby3Darwinongeneration,pangenesisandsexualselectionigentlemanlygenerationInthesummerof1838,CharlesDarwinconsideredmarriage.Thedisadvantagesincludedlosingthe‘freedomtogowhereoneliked’,whilestayingsinglewouldmeanavoiding‘theexpense&anxietyofchildren’.Butthen,hereflected,‘onlypicturetoyourselfanicesoftwifeonasofawithgoodfire,&books&musicperhaps’.Nottomentionan‘objecttobebelovedandplayedwith.betterthanadoganyhow’.Wedlockwon;withinmonthshewasengagedandthenmarriedtohiscousin,EmmaWedgwood.Thepairingbroughtanxieties,however,especiallyoverwhethermarriagebetweensuchcloserelativeswouldissueinunhealthychildren.1Asaphilosophicalnaturalist,Darwinhadlongbeeninterestedinreproductionor‘generation’,tousethetermoftheday.2Genera-tionalissueswouldeventuallyleadhimtostudysubjectsasdiverseasbarnacles,flowers,pigeonsanddomesticanimalandplantbreed-ing.Hishypothesisofpangenesis,probablyfirstformulatedin1841butonlypublishedin1868,wasanattempttogiveaunifiedaccountofallkindsofgeneration,fromthehealingofwoundsintrees,topropagationbybudsandgrafting,tosexualpairingsandfertilisation.Moreover,inDarwin’sview,sincesexualpairings–whetherdecidedbymalecombatorfemalechoice–wereselective,theyenabledaselectionalevolutionaryprocessseparatefrom,andsometimesintensionwith,naturalselection.Histheoryofsexualselectionarguedthatsomethinglikeapeacock’stail,whileloweringthepeacock’schancesofsurvival,mightgivehimareproductiveadvantageaslongaspeahenschoosethemaleswiththefinesttails.Whetherwritingofbirdsorhumans,Darwinalwaysdescribedfemalesas‘coy’and73CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n74jimendersbymodest,whilethemalesfoughtaggressivelyoverthem;hesawthepatternsofhissocietyrepeatedthroughoutthenaturalworld.ThischapterlooksatDarwin’sbeliefsaboutgenerationinthecontextofhiswidertheorisinganditssocialsetting.Thediscussiontakesinthetheoreticallegaciesfromtheeighteenthcentury;thede-velopmentofDarwin’sviewsongenerationfromhisstudentdaysatEdinburghonward;andthepoliticsofgender,marriageandgentle-manlylifeintheDarwinfamilyandinVictorianBritainatlarge.TheaimistoseetheworldofgenerationasDarwindid,puttingourselvesinhisplace.ForthelaterDarwininparticular,thiswillmeanputtingourselvesinhisgarden,becausebotanyratherthanzoologywasoftencentraltohisthinkingaboutgeneration.Ashemovedamonghisflowers,pollinatingandobserving,hischildrenhelpedmonitorhisexperiments,whilehiswifeEmmapatientlyranthehouseandpro-tectedhimfromtheintrusionsoftheoutsideworld.DarwintheVictorianpaterfamiliasisasimportantasDarwinthelastgreatgen-tlemanlynaturalistinunderstandinghisviewsonsex,marriageandgenerationinplantsandanimalsalike.iialegacyofgenerationalissuesFromancienttimes,andfollowingAristotle’sprecedentmostpromi-nently,naturalhistoryandnaturalphilosophyhaddwelledonplantandanimalgeneration–themakingandremakingoflivingmatter–inallitsdiversity:withparentsandwithout(‘spontaneous’gen-eration);withandwithoutsex.TheSwedishbotanistCarlLinne´(Linnaeus)gavethetopicnewvitalityintheeighteenthcenturybyclassifyinghigherplantsaccordingtothenumbersoffemalecarpelsandmalestamens–ontheassumptionthatsexualitywasaswidespreadamongplantsasamonganimals.3Darwin’sgrandfa-ther,thephysicianErasmusDarwin,exploitedthepoeticpotentialinLinnaeus’images,makingthepoet’sgarden,inhisLovesofthePlants(1789),asceneofvegetalorgies–totheshockeddismayofmoreprudishnaturalists.4Noteveryonewasconvincedthatsexwassoubiquitous,however;intheearlydecadesofthenewcentury,theissuewasstillfarfromsettled.5AsayoungnaturalistinthemakingatEdinburghUniversity,Darwinreadhisowngrandfather’streatiseZoonomia,possiblyatthesuggestionofhismentor,theanatomistRobertGrant.6GrantCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGeneration,pangenesisandsexualselection75wasaspecialistonthe‘zoophytes’(‘animal-plants’orplant-likeanimals)andakeensupporterofLamarck’stheoriesaboutthetrans-mutationofspecies.UnderGrant’stutelage,DarwincomparedandcontrastedplantandanimalreproductionbyexaminingthezoophytegenusFlustra,presentinghisfirstscientificpaperonthe‘eggs’thatswamforthfromtheparentpolypbeforesettlinginrockstocon-tinuethesedentarylifeoftheirspecies.7Darwin’sFlustrainvesti-gationsconnectedwithissuesaboutcolonialandindividuallifeinanimalsandplants.Werecoralsassociationsorindividuals?Wasatreeacolonyofbuds?8Later,atCambridge,botanicalstudieswithJohnHenslowdeepenedtheseinterests.9Controversially,Henslowarguedthatasexualreproductioninplants–by‘subdivision’,ashecalledit–wasrarebutnatural,occurringinsuchspeciesaselmtrees;whereasmosthorticulturalistsbythattimethoughtitunnatural,yieldingonlyshort-livedplants.10Darwin’searlyinfluences–ErasmusDarwin,GrantandHenslow–shapedmuchofhisthinkingaboutawiderangeofgenerationalis-sues,inparticularaboutthesexualandtheasexual,theindividualandthecolonial,andthenaturalandtheunnatural.11ThroughouttheBeagleyears,andespeciallyinassociationwiththeextensivemicroscopicalstudieshecarriedoutoninvertebrateanimals,theseissueswouldcontinuetofascinateDarwinanddirecthisenquiries.iiithebeagleandbeyondDarwin’stheorisingontheBeaglewasshotthroughwithgenera-tionalpreoccupations.Hisstudiesofinvertebratesconvincedhimthat,atthemostminutelevel,tinygranulesoflivingmatterwereinvolvedinallplantandanimalreproduction.12OntheislandofChiloe(nearChile),hefoundappletreesbeingpropagatedasexuallyinwaysfittingHenslow’sviews.13AnewinterestincoralsandtheirpropagationenabledDarwintointegratehisGrantianheritagewithLyell’swritingsingeology.Byearly1835,Darwin–herebreakingwithLyell–wasascribingtheextinctionofsomemammalspeciestoaninherentlimitationonspecieslifetimes;inDarwin’sview,thislimitationwasanalogoustothelimitationonthetotallifetimeofthedescendantsofanasexualgraftinapple-treepropagation.14Afterreturningfromthevoyage,Darwinlookedforevidencethatspecies,likebothindividualsandgrafteddescendants,havealimitedCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n76jimendersbylifetime.Hebegantoarguethatspeciesdiedforthesamereasonsgraftedtreesdid:inbothcasesthegenerationalprocesswasthesamebecausegenerationproceededbydivision,anddivisiontransmittedonlythelimitedvitalitypresentatthebeginningofaspecies’life.Fromthishypothesis,Darwininitiallyconcludedthatsexualandasexualgenerationweresubstantiallysimilar.15However,byJuly1837,whenhecommencedhisnotebooktheorisingontheforma-tionofnewspeciesfromearlierones–transmutationofspecies–hehaddecidedthatalthoughallgenerationwasindeeddivisional,thereweretwocrucialdifferencesbetweensexualandasexualgen-eration.First,sexualgenerationinvolvedthematingoftwoparents,ormoreprecisely,thefertilisationofthefemaleelementbythemaleelement.Second,sexualgenerationinvolvedmaturationintheoff-springthusproduced.Matingandmaturationwouldpreoccupyhimintentlyfromnowon.AsDarwinsawthesedistinctivelysexualprocesses,matingwasevolutionarilyconservative,andmaturationevolutionarilyinnova-tive,inwaysthathadnoanalogueamongasexualspecies.Inspecieswheremalesandfemalesmated,individualdifferencesbetweentheparentswereblendedout,producingoffspringintermediateinchar-acter.Generally,then,matingensuredtheuniformityofaspecies-characteracrossitsgeographicalrange,despitelocalvariationsofconditions.Butinthosesamespecies,thefactthattheoffspringmaturedleftsomescopefortheemergenceofadaptivevariationtochangingconditionsoflife,andthereforeforinnovationtobal-ancetheconservatism.InDarwin’sview,onlyimmature,maturingorganismswereimpressionablebyenvironmentalinfluences;andthiswastheonlymeansbywhichadaptiveandheritablevariationscouldbeacquired.16Normally,matingandmaturationremainedbalanced,sofortrans-mutationtooccurthatbalanceneededtobeupsetinfavourofmaturationalinnovations.AccordingtoDarwin,themigrationofsomeindividualstofreshconditions,withisolationfromtheparentstock,couldleadtoanewlocalvarietybeingformed–onethatcouldeventuallydivergesufficientlytobecomeanewspecies,espe-ciallyifdivergencelaterproducedsterilitybetweenthenewandoldstocks.17Fromthestartofthisnotebooktheorising,Darwinacceptedthatindividualmaturationrepeated,andrecapitulated(inthelaterterm),CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGeneration,pangenesisandsexualselection77thechangesinformgonethroughbythespecies’entireancestrysincelifebegan.18So,maturation,inrecapitulatingformerchanges,somehowmadepossiblenewonesallowingfurtheradaptationandprogress.InDarwin’sthinking,theroleofmaturationwascomple-mentedbythatofmatingandfertilisation.Sexualreproductionintro-ducedcrossingandblendingthatallowedadaptationstoimmediatecircumstancestobeconservedandpassedon,producingcumulative,progressivechangewhichcouldeventuallyallowhigherformsoflifetoarise.Sexualgenerationserved,then,notthegoodofindividuals,butthegoodofspeciesthathavetochangeorbecomeextinct;even-tually,sexallowedtheformationofhumanfromloweranimallife.Withinayear,Darwinwasspeculatingonhowspecieswithsep-aratesexesmighthavearisenfromhermaphroditicancestors.Heconcludedthatthehermaphroditicconditioncomesfirstandgiveswaylatertotheseparationofsexesthroughtheloss–the‘abortion’,asheputit–ofoneorothersexualstructureandactivity.Healsospeculated,especiallyinthesummerof1838,onhowfertilisationworks;tentativelyconcludingthatafemaleegg,inahigheranimal,islikeaplantbud:vegetative,passiveandexactlylikeitsparentalsourceininnerconstitution;whilemalesemenisanimateandactiveinimpressingontheeggsomeinfluence,makingitmatureinwaysdifferentfromtheparentalmaturation.Darwin(inkeepingwithalong-standing,male-dominatedtradition)assumedthatadaptationandprogressinlifewerelargelyinitiatedbymales,withfemalesensuringthatthechangesinitiatedwereenduringandcumulative.19Inthelate1830s,Darwinhaddevelopedseveralcomponentsofthetheoryhelaterreferredtoas‘descentwithmodification’.Sexualreproductionwasthekeyto‘modification’:itcreatedvariationsbutblendedthem,sothatnewformsdidn’tdivergesoquickly;andofcoursesexwasalsocentralto‘descent’,asitprovidedthemeansbywhichthemodificationswerepassedon.However,Darwinstillhadnomechanismtoexplaineithervariationorinheritance;andashebegantolookforone,heaccumulatednewmysteriestosolve.ivbuds,barnaclesandbirdsInSeptember1838,DarwintookabreakfromhisnotebooksonspeciestovisitLoddiges,thecelebratedLondonnurserygarden.Henotedafterwardsthathehadseen‘1279varietiesofroses!!!’.ThisCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n78jimendersbyprofusionintriguedhim;iftherewasenoughvariationinnaturetoproduce1,279varietiesofroses,whydidnotRosafragmentinto1,279species?HeobservedthatLoddiges’gardenerspropagatedtheirnewcultivarsbytakingcuttings,preciselybecauseasexualrepro-ductionwasconservative;allowingtherosestosetseedwouldhaveblendedoutthedesiredvarieties.Inthesamenotebookentry,Darwinremindedhimselfthatsomeanimalswerelikeplants,inthattaking‘cuttings’fromthemcouldpropagatethespecies;graftingrosecuttingswas‘likecuttingofftailofPlanaria’(agenusofflatworm),whichresultedinbothpartsofthewormre-growingintocompleteworms.ThewormsremindedDarwinthatsomelizardsgrewnewtailsiftheylosttheiroldone;asexualreproductionthusseemedtobeakinto‘healingofwound’–presumablyeachpartofanorgan-ism‘musthavetheknowledgehowtogrow,&thereforetorepairwounds’.Fromthissequenceofassociations,heconcludedthatifroses(liketheChiloeappletrees)couldbegrownfromcuttings–andwormscouldbegrowninthesameway–then‘intheseparatedparteveryelementofthelivingbodyispresent’.20Perhapstherewasnothinguniqueaboutsperm,pollenandeggs–theyweremerelythespecialisedformsofsomeabilitywhichwasdiffusedthroughoutanorganism.WhenDarwinvisitedLoddiges,hewasonceagainthinkingaboutplantfertilisation.Althoughmostflowerspossessbothmaleandfemaleparts,plantbreedersbelievedthatself-fertilisedflowerswerenotasvigorousascross-fertilisedones.Evenhermaphroditicflowersseemedtoavoidregularself-fertilisation,withthewindorinsectsactingtotransferpollenbetweendifferentplants.Darwinsetouttofindoutwhattheeffectsofself-andcross-fertilisationwere.HiscuriositywaspromptedpartlybyconcernsabouthisowninbreedingwithEmma.21Indeed,itwasshortlyaftertheirweddingthathebegantheobservationsonflower-breedingthatformedthebasisforthefull-blownexperimentsofthe1860s.22Whiletheflowerresearchesweregettingunderway,Darwinbe-ganalengthystudyoflivingandfossilbarnacles(Cirripedia);from1846until1854heworkedawayathisbarnacles,eventuallypro-ducingtwolargebooksonthem.23Themostintriguingaspectofthesecreatureswas,onceagain,theirsexualcharacteristics.Mostbarnaclespecieswerehermaphroditic,butothershaddistinctsexes.MostsurprisingwastheBeaglespecimenthathadfirstledhimtoCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGeneration,pangenesisandsexualselection79studybarnacles,atinyspecieshenamedArthrobalanus,inwhichthemalesweresotinythattheylivedinsidethefemales’shells,almostlikeparasites.SuchspeciesseemedtoDarwintobeinterme-diatesbetweenthecommonhermaphroditicbarnaclesandtheoneswithseparatesexes.24Darwinwasalsofascinatedbythevariabilityofbarnaclespecies–furtherproofofnature’sabilitytogeneratevariation.Barnacles,likeflowers,wereoftenhermaphrodites,andyet,justasintheplantkingdom,constantself-fertilisationwasavoided.BarnacleshelpedtoconfirmDarwin’searliersuspicionsaboutthecommonnatureofanimalandplantreproduction;andashestudiedthedizzyingdiver-sityofbarnaclereproductivestrategies,hedecidedthatallorganismsmustoriginallyhavereproducedasexually,thenhermaphroditicallyandfinallysexually.25Furtherevidencethatnatureabhorredprolongedself-fertilisationcameinthefirstofDarwin’sbotanicalbooks,OntheVariousContrivancesbywhichBritishandForeignOrchidsareFertilisedbyInsects(1862).26Asthebook’ssubtitle–‘onthegoodeffectsofintercrossing’–indicated,Orchidswasmainlyconcernedwiththeextraordinaryarrayofcomplexmechanismsthattheseplantspos-sessedtoensurethattheywerecross-fertilisedbyinsects,ratherthanself-fertilised.Asecondaryconcernwasthe‘designargument’,fromtheintricatecomplexityofplantstotheexistenceofanintelligent,designingGod.Byshowingthatthesemechanismsweretheproductofnaturallaws,Darwinmountedwhatheprivatelyreferredtoas‘a“flankmovement”ontheenemy’.27Darwinhadfoundintriguingconnectionsbetweenthereproduc-tionofplantsandanimals,butsofarhehadfoundtheseconnectionswithverysimpleanimals.Wouldtheyholdwiththehigheranimals,evenwithhumans?WouldtheproblemsassociatedwithinterbredorchidsreappearintheoffspringoftwobreedsascloselyrelatedastheDarwinsandtheWedgwoods?Darwinhadgrownupinthecountry,surroundedbyfriendsandrelativeswhobredhorsesanddogs,sothefarmyardseemedanaturalplacetoturnforanswersaboutanimalbreeding.28Darwinhadearliersentprofessionalanimalbreedersaquestion-naire,butgotverylittleresponse.So,startingin1855,hestartedbreedingpigeonsforhimself.29AmonghisaimswastodeterminethetruthofYarrell’slaw:that,whentwovarietieswerecrossed,itCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n80jimendersbywastheolderbreedwhosecharacterstendedtodominateintheoff-spring.Whatthisshowed,itseemedtoDarwin,wasthatcharactersbecomemorefirmlyandmorestronglyembeddedinthehereditaryconstitutionwiththepassingoftimeandgenerations,withconse-quencesintheshortrunforspeciesformation,andinthelongrunforstructuralprogress.30Unfortunately,thepigeonexperimentspro-videdagreatdealofcounter-evidencetoYarrell’slaw,andDarwinbecameconvincedoftheneedforalternativeexplanations.How-ever,itischaracteristicofhisapproachthathedidnotdismisssucholder‘laws’entirely,butmerelydecidedtheywereonlypartialexplanations.31vatreatiseonbreedingIn1868,DarwinpublishedTheVariationofAnimalsandPlantsunderDomestication,which–amongotherthings–attemptedtoexplaintheoftenperplexingphenomenaofinheritance.32Darwindrewparticularattentiontofourpuzzles:thetendencyofoffspringtoshowthecharactersoftheirremoteancestorsratherthantheirparents(‘reversion’);thetendencyoffruitproducedfromthesplicingtogetheroftwodifferentkindsoftreetohaveahybrid,intermediatecharacter(grafthybrids);theabilityofsomeanimalsandplantstore-growdamagedorseveredparts(regeneration);andlastly,thecuriouscaseofLordMorton’smare.Darwin’sexamplesofreversionwerethecharacteristicallyhomelyonesofdomesticpigeonsrevertingtotheirwild-typecolour-ing,orhornedsheepandcattlere-appearinginpolledbreeds.Suchreappearanceswereproblemsforbreeders,whocouldnotbesurehowmanygenerationswereneededbefore‘thebreedmaybecon-sideredaspure,andfreefromalldangersofreversion’.33Knowingwhyandhowancientcharacterscouldreappearpromisedtothrowlightonthemechanismofinheritanceandalsotheemergence,de-spiteblending,ofnewspeciesfromvarieties.Darwinalsorecognisedtheneedtounderstandwhatpreventednewvarietiesfromrevertingtotheirancestralcondition;otherwisereversioncouldprovide,notsupportingevidenceforthegradualtransmutationofspecies,butfatalevidenceagainstit.Hispigeon-breedingexperimentshadsug-gestedthatreversionwastooraretobeaproblem;butknowingthemechanismwouldhelphimexplainwhythatwasthecase.34CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGeneration,pangenesisandsexualselection81TheotheraspectofreversionthatconcernedDarwinwassocom-monthatithadrarelystruckanyoneasneedingexplanation,buthewonderedhowamancouldtransmitcharacterstohisgrandson,viahisdaughter–‘characterswhichshedoesnot,orcannot,possess’.35Howwasitpossible,forexample,foraboytogrowupwithabeardliketheonethathismother’sfatherhadborne,giventhathismotherhadnobeard?Fromquestionslikethese,Darwinconcludedthattheovulesandspermatozoaofhigheranimalsmustbe‘crowdedwithinvisiblecharacters,propertobothsexes...andtoalonglineofmaleandfemaleancestorsseparatedbyhundredsoreventhousandsofgenerationsfromthepresenttime’.Yet,thesecharacters,‘likethosewrittenonpaperwithinvisibleink’,werenotvisible,but‘liereadytobeevolvedwhenevertheorganisationisdisturbedbycertainknownorunknownconditions’.36GrafthybridswereanotherofDarwin’senigmas.Hediscussedcaseswheregraftinghadproducedaplant‘resemblingineveryim-portantrespectahybridformedintheordinarywaybyseminalreproduction’.37Thesecasesreinforcedthesuspicion,firstarousedbytheChiloeappletrees,thattheabilitytocreateanewindivid-ualwasindeeddiffusedthroughouttheplant.AnotheroldquestionthathereturnedtoinVariationwasregeneration,thepowerofsomeorganismstore-growparts.Henotedthatsalamanderscouldregen-eratetheirlimbs,whichseemedtosuggestthatwhatevercontrolledthegrowthofthelimbmustbepresentthroughouttheorganism.Thesimilaritiesbetweengraft-hybridsandregenerationledDarwintospeculatethattheseabilitiesmightberelated.38Finally,therewasthesingularcaseofLordMorton’smare.Themarehadbeenmatedwithamalequagga(anow-extinct,SouthAfricanspeciesofstripedhorse)and,asexpected,producedquagga-likefoalswithsomestripes.However,Darwinrecords,‘shewassub-sequentlysenttoSirGoreOuseley,andproducedtwocoltsbyablackArabianhorse’.MuchtoSirGore’sastonishment,thesefoalsalsohadafewquagga-likestripes.ThiscaseappearedtoshowthatwhatDarwincalled‘thedirectactionofthemaleelementonthefe-maleform’couldbepermanentlyimpressedonafemaleandpersistoverseveralgenerations,eventhoughothermatingssubsequentlyoccurred.39Darwinbelievedthatthesameprepotencyoccurredinplants,inthatpollenfromanotherspeciesmighthaveapermanenteffectonaplant’s‘ovarium’,sothattheinfluenceoftheforeignCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n82jimendersbyspecieswouldbeapparentinsubsequentgenerations.40Hedevelopedthisideawithoneofhischaracteristicanalogiesbetweenthelevelofthespeciesandthatoftheindividual,bycomparingtheinfluenceofthemaleonaspecificoffspringwiththatofchangedenvironmentalconditionsonalineage.41VariationisinmanywaystheculminationofDarwin’sgenera-tiontheorising:fromhisearliestexperimentswithFlustraandthezoophyteshehadbeenpersuadedofthecontinuitybetweenanimalsandplants;histimewithHenslowandhisexperiencesaboardtheBeaglecontributedtohisbeliefthatsexualandasexualreproductionwerepointsonacontinuum;wormsandsalamandershadsuggestedalinkbetweenhealingandreproduction;blendinginheritanceinpigeonsandroseshadshownhimjusthowmuchvariationsexcouldgenerate,whileatthesametimeactingasaregulator,tostopspeciesfragmentingintoextinction;andmaturationandLamarckianinher-itanceshowedthecontinuousimpressionabilityoftheembryoandtheadult,respectively.Withthisbackgroundinview,itbecomesclearwhytheVariation’s800pagesofdetailedcasesculminateinthe‘ProvisionalHypothesisofPangenesis’–farfrombeingahastyafterthought,itwasasystematicattempttoconnectsomeofDar-win’slongest-heldideas.vithehypothesisofpangenesisDarwinintroducedhishypothesisbysummarisinghisproblems,andthenofferedaratherbriefdescriptionofhisself-confessedly‘imper-fect’solution,pangenesis.Heproposedthateverypartofanorgan-ismcan‘throwoffminutegranuleswhicharedispersedthroughoutthewholesystem’,andthatthese‘multiplybyself-division,andareultimatelydevelopedintounitslikethosefromwhichtheywereoriginallyderived’.Henamedthesegranules‘gemmules’,andarguedthat‘theyarecollectedfromallpartsofthesystemtoconstitutethesexualelements’.42AlthoughDarwincoinedtheterm,pangenesiswasnotanewidea.Itsoriginswentbacktotheancientworldandmanyeighteenth-centurynaturalistshadpropoundedvariousversionsofit.ByDarwin’sday,however,theideawasmuchoutoffavour.43Toseewhyherevivedanddevelopedthepangenesishypothesis,weneedtounderstandhow,inhisview,thehypothesisresolvedhisvariousCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGeneration,pangenesisandsexualselection83puzzles.Inthecaseofreversion,heargued,forexample,thataboycouldinherithisgrandfather’sbeardfromhismotherbecause‘thesecondarycharacters,whichappertaintoonesex,liedormantintheothersex;thatis,gemmulescapableofdevelopmentintothesecondarymalecharactersareincludedwithinthefemale;andcon-verselyfemalecharactersinthemale’.Thesameprocesscouldex-plainalltheotherenigmaticatavismsthatDarwinhaddescribed.44Andbecausegemmulesweresupposedlydispersedthroughouttheorganism,theycouldexplainbothgrafthybrids(sincetheelementsneededforreproductionwerenotrestrictedtothereproductiveor-gans)andtheregenerationofmissinglimbs(sincethegemmulesthatmadethemwerecirculatingelsewhereinthebody).PangenesismadeconnectionsbetweenmanyofDarwin’sideas:therelationshipsbetweenembryos,adultsandspecies;thelinkbe-tweensexualandasexualreproduction;theconcomitantviewthatthereisnodeepdifferencebetweengametesandasexualbuds;andhisconfidencethatreproductioniscontinuouswithgrowthandhealing.45ItisalsoimportanttorememberthatDarwin’sgemmuleswereconceivedasself-propelled,largelyautonomouscreatures(notunlikethe‘eggs’ofthezoophytes,whichGranthadalsocalledgemmules)whichmultipliedthemselvesandthencombinedtode-terminethecharacteroftheneworganism.Inhisdiscussionofreversioninhybrids,Darwinarguedthat‘unmodifiedandundete-rioratedgemmules’,presentintwohybrids,‘wouldbeespeciallyapttocombine’.46Suchphrasesseemtoimplyaformofcom-petitionamongthegemmules:the‘pure’un-hybridisedgemmulesaredescribedas‘undeteriorated’(andthus‘fitter’);theirsuperiorityallowedthemtodominateandthusre-asserttheorganism’sorigi-nalcharacteristics.Themoregemmulestherewerefromoneparent,themorethatparent’sspecificcharacterswouldpredominate–andthat,itseemed,explainedthedominanceassociatedwithYarrell’slaw.Thegemmulesoftheolderspeciesweremorestableandvigor-ous,andthiswaswhatallowedthemtocompetesuccessfullyagainstthoseoftheyoungerspecies.47Darwinalsopresumedthatinsuchacompetition,themaleelementswouldpredominate.HetherebyexplainedtheapparentprepotencyofthemaleinsuchcasesasMorton’smare.48InDarwin’sview,thepersistenceofmaleinfluencewasduetogemmulesbeing‘capableoftransmissioninadormantstatetofuturegenerations’,whentheymightbere-awakened.49CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n84jimendersbyAsalreadynoted,Darwinthoughtthattherewasgoodevidencethatacquiredcharacteristicscouldbeinherited,butherecognisedthatsuchinheritanceraisedthequestionof‘howcantheuseordisuseofaparticularlimborthebrainaffectasmallaggregateofreproductivecells,seatedinadistantpartofthebody?’Pangen-esiswasintendedtoexplainthistoo:sincegemmuleswerepro-ducedthroughoutanorganism’slife,achangedorganwouldproducechangedgemmules.50AsDarwintriedtoexplaineverythingfromreversiontograft-hybridshebroughttogethermanyofthethemesthatwerehislife-longpreoccupations.‘Inheritance’,hewrote,‘mustbelookedatasmerelyaformofgrowth,liketheself-divisionofthelowly-organisedunicellularorganism.’Darwinstatedthegeneralpointsuccinctly:Eachanimalandplantmaybecomparedwithabedofsoilfullofseeds,someofwhichwillsoongerminate,someliedormantforaperiod,whilstothersperish.Whenwehearitsaidthatamancarriesinhisconstitutiontheseedsofaninheriteddisease,thereismuchtruthintheexpression.Nootherattempt,asfarasIamaware,hasbeenmade,imperfectasthisconfessedlyis,toconnectunderonepointofviewtheseseveralgrandclassesoffacts.Anorganicbeingisamicrocosm–alittleuniverse,formedofahostofself-propagatingorganisms,inconceivablyminuteandnumerousasthestarsinheaven.51viimethod,argumentandthepangenesishypothesisThehypothesisofpangenesiswasclearlynotanaberrationonDar-win’spart.Ithadalongtraditionbehindit,andhesawitasthelog-icalculminationofhisgenerationthinking.52JonathanHodgehasarguedthatDarwin’sthinkingcanbedividedintothreestages.From1835on,histheoryofspeciesextinctionfromaninherentlimitationonlifetimepromptedhimtoholdthatallgeneration–sexualandasexual–wasessentiallythesame,beingaprocessofdivision.From1837on,withoutrepudiatingthatdivisionthesis,Darwinconcen-tratedontheinteractionoftwoparentsandonmaturationintheiroffspringastwofeaturesmarkingoffallsexualreproductionfromanyasexualreproduction,thusmakingadaptivevariationanddescentwithmodificationpossible.Third,from1841,hebecameconvinced,mainlyperhapsonreflectingonsuchphenomenaasgraftCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGeneration,pangenesisandsexualselection85hybrids,thatallgeneration,fromhealingtobreeding,wasultimatelysexual,inthatitwasduetomicro-ovules,orgemmules,thatwereengagedinactsofquasi-fertilisation.53AfterVariationhadbeenpublished,DarwinwrotetohisfriendJosephHooker,thebotanist:Haveyouevermetwithanytangible&clearviewofwhattakesplaceingeneration,whetherbyseedsorbirds.–Orhowalong-lostcharactercanpossiblyreappear–orhowthemaleelementcanpossiblyaffectthemother-plant–orthemotheranimalsothatherfutureprogenyareaffected.Nowallthesepoints&manyothersareconnectedtogether,–whethertrulyorfalselyisanotherquestion–byPangenesis.54Hooker,likemanyofhiscontemporaries,wasnotpersuaded,however.HewrotetoGeorgeGrey,theNewZealandgovernor,thatVariationwas‘awonderfulbook’andhadproduced‘aprofoundsensation’butthat‘pangenesisisastumblingblocktome,Igrantallitspremises&allitsresults,butIdonotseehowmyunder-standingishelpedbythehypothesisofmultiplyinggermsorgemmulesoratoms’.55AlthoughDarwinhadmadeintriguinglinks,Hookerfeltthat,intheabsenceofdirectevidenceforgemmules,Darwin’shypothesisexplainednothing.Hooker’sscepticismaboutthepangenesishypothesisthuscontrastedsharplywithhissupportforthetheoryofnaturalselection;andacomparisonofDarwin’sargumentativestrategiesintheOriginandtheVariationholdscluestoapossibleexplanationforthisdifferenceinresponse.56DarwinhadusedthefinalchaptersoftheOrigintoshowhowhistheorycouldexplainadiverserangeofphenomena.57Thisaccumula-tionofevidencewasmuchmorethanmerelycorroborativedetail;hehopedtodemonstratethatasingletheory–naturalselection–couldexplainadiversityofapparentlyunconnectedevidence.Doingsowascentraltohisphilosophicalapproachtoscientificenquiry;Darwinwastryingtoestablishaconsilienceofinductions.TheBritishphilosopherWilliamWhewellhadproposed‘consilience’(literally‘jumpingtogether’)asasolutiontothelong-standingproblemofevaluatinghypotheses.58Accordingtothisdoctrine,ahypothesisgainedespeciallystrongempiricalsupportwhenitturnedouttoexplainphenomenaofkindsnotcontemplatedwhenthetheorywasfirstformulated.59Moregenerally,ifahypothesiscouldexplainnu-merousanddiversekindsoffacts,itwasmuchmorelikelytobetrueCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n86jimendersbythanifsupportedbyfactsofjustonekind.Themoreatheorycouldsuccessfullyexplain,themorelikelyitwastobetrue.60AlargepartofwhatmadethepangenesishypothesisplausibletoDarwinwasthat–justlikenaturalselection–itseemedtoex-plainsomuch.61Butthetheoryofnaturalselectionhadmorethanexplanatorysuccessinitsfavour.Darwinhadpresentedthetheoryasfollowinginductivelyfromindependentlyevidencedphenomena;evenhiscriticsagreedthatplantsandanimalsvaried,thatselectivebreedingcouldcreatenewvarieties,andthattherewasastruggleforexistence.Thetheoryofnaturalselectionlinkedthesephenomenawithoutpositinganyunobservednewentities.Thepangenesishy-pothesiswasquitedifferent.Noonehaddetectedagemmule;yetDarwinwasconvincedthattheymustexist,because,iftheydidex-ist,thediverseandoftenpuzzlingphenomenaofinheritance‘jumpedtogether’intoasingleexplanatoryscheme.HeclearlyhopedtorepeatthestrategyoftheOriginwithpangenesis,evenquotingWhewellinhissupport.62ButperhapsDarwinwasledastraybyhisownskillsofrhetoric.Afterall,thestructureoftheOrigin’sargumentborenorelationtotheprocessbywhichhehadarrivedathistheory;thecon-silienceofinductionsmerelyboostedhistheory.63Yet,emboldenedbytheOrigin’ssuccess,Darwinseemstohaveregardedconsilienceashisstartingpointforthepangenesishypothesis.Thegemmulescouldalmostbedescribedas‘consilienceparticles’;theymadeap-parentconnectionsbetweenDarwin’sproblems,butwereprovidedwithnoadditionalevidence.Hooker’slettertoGreyaboutpangenesisalsomentionedthat‘DarwinisatworkonabookonMan!WhichwillIexpect,turnthescientific&theologicalworldsupsidedown.’64Itcertainlydid;butwhentheDescentofManappearedin1871,thebulkofDarwin’slong-delayeddiscussionofhumanoriginsturned,notonnaturalselectionorpangenesis,butonsexualselection.viiithetheoryofsexualselectionIn1860,DarwinwrotetoAsaGray,theAmericanbotanist,that‘Thesightofafeatherinapeacock’stail,wheneverIgazeatit,makesmesick!’65Darwin’snauseawaspromptedbytheapparentinabilityofnaturalselectiontoexplainsuchanextravagantbutapparentlyuselessfeature;ashenoted:‘thelongtrainofthepeacock...mustCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGeneration,pangenesisandsexualselection87renderthemamoreeasypreytoanyprowlingtiger-catthanwouldotherwisebethecase’.66Howtoexplainfeaturesthatdidnothingtoaidbirdsinthestruggleforexistence–andmightevenhinderthem?Darwin’sproposedsolutiontothispuzzlearosefromthefactthatpeacocks,ashewrote,‘displaytheirattractionswithelaboratecareinthepresenceofthefemales’,almostalways‘duringtheseasonoflove’.67Heconcludedthatthepeacock’stailmustbeasexualorna-ment.Ithadevolvedbecausethemostvigorousandhealthyofthepeacock’sancestorsgrewthebiggesttailsandusedthemtoattractthemostvigorousandhealthyoftheproto-peahenfemales.Thevig-orousthusmatedearliestandmostoften,producingalargenumberofoffspring,whowouldinheriteithertheirfather’slargetailortheirmother’spreferenceforlargetails.Overmanygenerations,peacocks’tailswouldcontinuetogetbiggerandbigger,eventuallyresultingintheextravagantstructureofthemodernpeacock.68SexualselectionwasespeciallyplausibletoDarwinbecausehebelievedintheinher-itanceofacquiredcharacteristics(whichpangenesissupposedlyex-plained).InDarwin’sview,merelybeingstrongandhealthywouldallowapeacocktogrowabiggertail,andthisacquiredcharacterwouldbeinheritedbyhisoffspring.69Darwinarguedthatnaturalselectionalonecouldnothavepro-ducedmaleornamentsbecausetheywerenotessentialforsurvival.Afterall,‘thefemales,whichareunarmedandunornamented,areabletosurviveandprocreatetheirkind’.70JustashehaddoneintheOrigin,Darwindrewonevidencefromthefarmyard,notinghowbreedershadimprovedthesecondarysexualcharacteristics–plumageandsoon–ofgamecocksandpigeons.71AccordingtoDarwin,sexualselectionhadtwodistinctaspects:malecombatandfemalechoice.72Heallowedthatthefemalesoftheloweranimalsplayedasubstantialroleinsexualselection;but,inhumans,theevidenceofVictoriansocietyseemedtohimtodemonstratethatmenhadlargelyseizedthepowerofchoice.Thisseizureinturnexplainedanotherwiseawkwardanomaly–thatitwashumanfe-males,ratherthanmales,whoornamentedthemselvestoattractamate.AsDarwinsawit,justasmenselectedpigeonstofittheiridealsofbeauty,theytendedtorejectpotentialbrideswhofailedtheaesthetictest.Justasthetheoryofnaturalselectioncameoutoftheanimalbreeders’gazettesandthepigeon-fanciers’clubs,theCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n88jimendersbytheoryofsexualselectionwaspartlyproducedbyDarwin’ssocialanddomesticsituation.73ForDarwin,sexualselectionexplainedasetoffactsthatnatu-ralselectioncouldnot:theapparentlyuselessdifferencesbetweenmalesandfemales.ItisnoaccidentthatsexualselectionappearedintheDescentofMan;thetwotopicswerealwayscloselylinkedinDarwin’sthinking.74Hebelievedsexualselectionmightexplainhowdifferenthumanracesarose:abeautifulEuropeanwomanmayrepelanAfricanman,whileanAfricanwoman’sidealmanwouldberejectedbyanAsianwoman.75Beauty,forDarwin,wasverymuchintheeyeofthebeholderandassuchofferednomoresurvivalbenefitthanthepeacock’staildid.Darwinspeculatedthatsuchvariationswerethekeytounderstandingtheemergenceofdifferenthumanraces.Hearguedthatin‘savage’culturesthe‘strongestandmostvig-orousmen’willbecomechiefsandhavethepickofthemostattrac-tivewomen(accordingtotheirlocalstandardofbeauty).Thechiefswilloftenhaveseveralwivesand–beingwealthy–willhavethefoodandotherresourcestoraisethemostoffspring,sothat‘afterthelapseofmanygenerations’thechiefs’arbitrarytasteswill‘modifytoacertainextentthecharacterofthetribe’.76Thesamemecha-nismexplainedhowhumanityhaddiversifiedfromasingleancestralspeciesintonumerousraceswithdistinctmoralcodesand,Darwinassumed,widelyvaryingintellectualabilities.Hebelievedmoralandintellectualtraitswereacquiredandpassedonin‘Lamarckian’fashionandthatsexualselectionwouldthusallowvariationsinmoralorintellectualstandardstobecomepartofthemake-upofaparticularhumanrace;peoplecouldhavelocaltastesinmorality,justastheyhadlocaltastesinbeauty.77However,itwasnotjustraceswhovariedintheirmentalprowess.Darwinalsobelievedthatmenwereasintellectuallysuperiortowomenaswhitepeopleweretoblackones.Darwinarguedthatthesedifferencesresultedfromnaturalandsexualselectionovermanygenerations.Maleancestorsofhumanswouldhavehadtocompetesuccessfullywithrivalmalesandwouldalsohavehad‘todefendtheirfemales,aswellastheiryoung,fromenemiesofallkinds,andtohuntfortheirjointsubsistence’.Asaresult,menhadinevitablybecomebothmoreintelligentandstrongerthanwomen,althoughDarwindidadmitthat‘womenhavebecomemorebeautiful’.78ForDarwin,‘manhasultimatelybecomesuperiortowoman’.Nevertheless,hebelievedthat,becausepangenesisentailedtheequalCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGeneration,pangenesisandsexualselection89transmissionofcharacterstobothsexes,thedifferencebetweenmenandwomenwasnotasgreatasitmighthavebeen.Indeed,withoutthedistributiveequitythatpangenesisenforced,‘manwouldhavebecomeassuperiorinmentalendowmenttowoman,asthepeacockisinornamentalplumagetothepeahen’.79Onthepangenesishy-pothesis,justasmalecharacteristicssuchasthecolourofabeardwerepresentbutdormantinwomen,sotoomightbethegemmulesformaleintellectualsuperiority.Darwinspeculatedthat,iftheyweregivenequalaccesstoeducation,womenmighteventuallymatchmeninintellect.80Butheviewedtheeducationofwomenasawasteoftimeandresources–anunsurprisingconclusion,perhaps,foramanwhohadpicturedhismarriageasinvolvinga‘nicesoftwife’,notaself-confidentintellectualequal,andwhoclearlythoughtthedeci-siontomarrywasentirelyhis,notEmma’s.81Darwin’sassumptionsaboutwomen’sstatuswerecommonamongeducatedVictorianmen.Somewhatironically,severalofhiscontemporaries–suchasAlfredRusselWallaceandStGeorgeMivart–rejectedDarwin’sproposalthatfemalechoicecouldhaveplayedanyroleinevolutionbecausefemalesweresonotoriouslyfickle.WallaceandMivartthoughtfemaletasteschangedtoooftenforthemevertobeconsidereda‘force’akintonaturalselection.82Darwin’stheoryofsexualselectionwaspublished,andlargelydismissed,atatimewhenVictorianfeministsweredemandingthevote–theNationalSocietyforWomen’sSuffragehadbeenfoundedin1869–aswellasaccesstohighereducationandthelearnedprofes-sions.Educatedwomenwereevendiscreetlydiscussingtheattrac-tionsofcontraception.ForDarwinandhismalecontemporaries,suchdevelopmentsfuelledfearthattheuneducated,inferiorlowerclasseswouldsoonoutbreedtheireducatedbetters.83Another,olderanxietyofDarwin’sreappearedintheDescent,whenhearguedthatthegovernmentshouldusethecensustodiscoveronceandforall‘whetherornotconsanguineousmarriagesareinjurioustoman’–andoutlawthemifnecessary.84Darwin’sconsanguineousmarriagetoEmmawasstillverymuchonhismindinthe1870s.Theflower-breedingexperimentshehadbegunjustafterhemarriedeventuallyresultedinTheEffectsofCrossandSelfFertilisationintheVegetableKingdom(1876),an-otherbooklargelyconcernedwiththeharmfuleffectsofin-breeding.ThesamepreoccupationwascentraltoTheDifferentFormsofFlowersonPlantsoftheSameSpecies(1877),whichshowedwhyCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n90jimendersbyhermaphroditicflowers,suchasprimulas,oftenhadtwodifferentflowerforms(aphenomenonnowknownasheterostyly).Onceagain,Darwinshowedthatnaturehadevolvedamechanismtoavoidself-fertilisation.Ashetabulatedhisflowerresults,histhoughtsmustsurelyhaveturnedtohisownchildren.Severalappearedsicklyandwerefrequentlyill.Twohaddiedininfancy.85Throughouthislife,themarriagesofanimalsandflowerswerethusentangledwiththeimplicationsforandconsequencesofhisownmarriage.PoignantastheywereforDarwinpersonally,hisbotanicaldiscov-erieshadtheoreticalconsequencesaswell.Hisexperimentalresultsrelateddirectlytohisearlierreflectionsonbarnacles,especiallyonthetransitionfromhermaphroditicstatestothoseinwhichthesexesarefullyseparate.Graduallyhebegantoplacegreateremphasisonsterility,ratherthangeographicisolation,asamajormechanismofspeciesformation.Heterostylyseemedthefirstevolutionarystepontheroadtothesterilitybarrierbetweenspecies.86Inhisview,hisplantexperimentsshowedthatcrossedplantsweremorevigor-ousthanself-fertilisedones,andthatdevelopingsterilitybetweenpopulationshelpedproducenewspecies.ixgenerationmattersDarwin’sengagementwithissuesofgenerationextendedoverfiftyyears,fromhisearlyobservationsonsea-matstohislateexperimentsonflowers.Thisengagementstimulatedagreatdealofprivatethe-orisingabouttransmutation,andalsotwoofDarwin’smostimpor-tantpublicdoctrines:thehypothesisofpangenesis,andthetheoryofsexualselection.Thelattertheory,afteralongspellinthescien-tificwilderness,isnowwidelycelebrated.Bycontrast,pangenesisisstillseeninmanyquarterseitherasapieceofinexplicablefolly,orasavisionarybutflawedattempttoanticipatemoderngenetics.87Itmakesmorehistoricalsense,however,toseethehypothesisasanattempttodrawtogetherthestrandsofDarwin’sgenerationthe-orising,usingsomeofthesameargumentativestrategiesthathadworkedsowellintheargumentoftheOrigin.Darwinsurveyedhismassofevidenceandtriedtodeviseasingletheorythatwouldallowallhisfactsto‘jumptogether’intoasingleexplanation.Hewaswellawarethathewasspeculating,andknewthatatleastsomeaspectsofhistheorywouldturnouttobewrong.ButwhenmensuchasCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGeneration,pangenesisandsexualselection91hiscousinFrancisGaltontriedtotestitexperimentally,pangenesisprovedevenmore‘imperfect’thanDarwinhadfeared.88Darwinlivedatacrucialtransitionalperiodinthehistoryofthelifesciences,whenthegentlemanlytraditionsofnaturalhistory,whichmadenorealdistinctionsbetween‘amateurs’and‘profes-sionals,’weregraduallybeingtransformedintothelaboratory-basedsciencethatwenowrecogniseasbiology.89Thischangehascon-tributedtotheuneasethatmodernreaderssometimesfeelwiththegenerationalstrandinDarwin’stheorising.Althoughdiscriminatinginhischoiceofcorrespondents,Darwinneverthelesstendedtoas-sumethattheeye-witnessreportsofhisfellowgentlemencouldbetrustedasscientificevidence.90Moreover,hisinformantswereveryoftenothermen,whogenerallysharedhisassumptionthatnaturehadallottedverydifferentrolestomalesandfemales.IncaseslikeLordMorton’smare,forexample,Darwinassumedthatthe‘maleprinciple’wasmorepowerfulandpotentthanthefemale.91Hissup-positiondeflectedhimfromthepossibilitythatthestripedoffspringoftheunstripedfatherandmotherweresimplecasesofreversion;ratherthanshowingtheenduringinfluenceofthemother’sprevious,stripedmate,thestripesrevealthatdomestichorseshadstripedan-cestors.(Longafterthequagga’sextinction,stripedfoalscontinuetobeborntoday.)Darwin’sprejudiceswerealsoexplicitwhenhewroteaboutsexualselection.Ineveryspecies,heargued,‘itisthemalesthatfighttogetherandsedulouslydisplaytheircharmsbeforethefemales;andthosewhicharevictorioustransmittheirsuperioritytotheirmaleoffspring’.Themostthefemalescoulddoischoose.Thefemale,inDarwin’sview,isbynature‘coy,andmayoftenbeseenendeavouringforalongtimetoescapefromthemale.Everyonewhohasattendedtothehabitsofanimalswillbeabletocalltomindinstancesofthiskind.’92ThehistorianEvelleenRichardshaspointedoutthatthereisahighdegreeofcircularityinDarwin’sargumentshere.HedescribedanimalsintermsofVictoriansexualmorality(thus‘coy’females),andthen‘naturalised’humanactionsbyanalogywithanimalsinter-pretedintheVictorianway(thusDarwincompared‘youngrustics’atafairtocourtingbirds).93Itisworthremembering,however,thatfeministswerestillverymuchtheminorityinDarwin’sday,andmostVictorianwomen,likeDarwinhimself,viewedexistinggen-derrolesasentirelynatural.94EndorsingorcondemningDarwin’sCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n92jimendersbyopinionsonwomen–oronrace–isasfutileastryingtore-inventhimasapioneerofgenetics.Itismoreilluminatingtoplacehimbackinthecontextofhistimes–atheorist,notofgenetics,butofgeneration,ponderingthereproductionofflowers,animalsandthegentlemenwhobredthem.notesIamgratefultoNickHopwood,JamesMoore,EvelleenRichards,JamesSecord,RebeccaStott,PamelaThurschwellandPaulWhiteforreadingandcommentingonvariousdraftsofthischapter,andtoJonHodgeandGregRadickfortheirextensiveguidanceandfeedback.1.C.Darwin1958,231–4,italicsinoriginal.SeealsoBrowne1995,379;DesmondandMoore1991,256,269;E.Richards1983,57.2.Hodge1985,207;Bartley1992,310.3.Farley1982,7–8;Bartley1992,307–8;Allen1994,35–7,46–7;Koerner1996,154–5;Koerner1999,15–16;Schiebinger1996,163,171–2,174–5.4.Browne1989,595–7;Farley1982,28–9;Schiebinger1996,173–4.5.Farley1982,28–9.6.Browne1995,61–2.7.The‘ova’ofFlustra(agenusnowclassifiedasaBryozoan)wereinfactitsembryos.Hodge1985,210;Browne1995,75,80–2;Jordanova1984;Sloan1985,77–9.8.Sloan1986,384–5,388,393.9.Sloan1986,373–7.OnHenslow,seeWaltersandStow2001.10.Sloan1985,101–2.11.Hodge1985,208–11;Farley1982,53.12.Sloan1986,388–93;Hodge1985,211.13.C.Darwin[1839]1986,ch.14,entryfor4February;Sloan1985,101–2;Hodge1985,211.14.Sloan,thisvolume.15.Barrettetal.1987,CharlesDarwin’sNotebooks,RedNotebook,MSp.132.SeealsoE.Richards1994,394,407–8.16.Hodge1985,214–15,218–19.17.Hodge1985,220;CharlesDarwin’sNotebooks,NotebookB,MSpp.5–10(hereafterB5–10);Farley1982,107–9;E.Richards1994,407–8;DepewandWeber1995,114–15,130–1;Bartley1992,312.18.Hodge1985,219.Ontheconnectionbetweenembryologicalandevo-lutionarytheories,seeR.J.Richards1992;[Chambers][1844]1994;andSecord2000.19.D162–79.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGeneration,pangenesisandsexualselection9320.Allan1977,122–3;D128–31.21.Hodge1985,223;DesmondandMoore1991,280,290,447,619–20.22.Allan1977,127–8;Hodge1985,223.23.Browne1995,471–2,510.24.Browne1995,471,477–80,513.25.Browne1995,479–80,482,513–14,527–8;Ghiselin1969,134.26.C.Darwin1862.27.DarwintoAsaGray,23–24July1862,quotedinGhiselin1969,136.SeealsoF.Burkhardtetal.1985–2001,Correspondencex,331(hereafterCCD).28.Secord1981,164.29.Bartley1992,309,329.30.Hodge,thisvolume;alsoBartley1992,310–11;C.Darwin[1875]1998,ii,59–60;Hodge1985,220–1;Browne1995,157,354–5.31.Bartley1992,323.32.Bartley1992,313–14.33.C.Darwin[1875]1998,ii,2–5,9.34.Bartley1992,323–7.35.C.Darwin[1875]1998,ii,393.36.C.Darwin[1875]1998,ii,35–6.37.C.Darwin[1875]1998,i,417.38.C.Darwin[1875]1998,ii,349,380;cf.Olby1966,100andGeison1969,384–5.39.R.W.Burkhardt1979,3;Hodge1985,224;C.Darwin[1875]1998,i,435.40.C.Darwin[1875]1998,i,435;R.W.Burkhardt1979,6.41.Hodge1985,220–1.42.C.Darwin[1875]1998,ii,370.43.Farley1982,27–31;Zirkle1946,119–22,140–4.44.C.Darwin[1875]1998,ii,393.45.Hodge1985,228–9;Geison1969,375.46.C.Darwin[1875]1998,ii,394–5.47.C.Darwin[1875]1998,ii,59–60;Hodge1985,220–1;Browne1995,157,354–5;Geison1969,377–8.48.Hodge1985,211,230.49.C.Darwin[1875]1998,ii,370.50.C.Darwin[1875]1998,ii,367.51.C.Darwin[1875]1998,ii,398–9.52.Hodge1985,227–9.53.Hodge1985,209.54.C.DarwintoJ.D.Hooker,23February1868,inF.Darwin[1888]1969,iii,78.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n94jimendersby55.J.D.HookertoGeorgeGrey,31May1868.Italicsinoriginal.GreyPapers,vol.22,AucklandCentralCityLibrary,Auckland,NewZealand.56.DesmondandMoore1991,550–1;Ruse1993b,28–30.57.C.Darwin[1859]1964,chs.7,8,10,11,12and13.58.Forbackground,seeHull,thisvolume.59.Ruse1993b,13–14.60.Oldroyd1986,142–64.61.Bartley1992,330–1.62.Whewell,quotedinC.Darwin[1875]1998,ii,350.63.SeeHodgeandWaters,thisvolume.64.J.D.HookertoGeorgeGrey,31May1868.65.DarwintoAsaGray,3April1860,CCDvii,140;Cronin1991,113.66.C.Darwin[1871]1981,ii,97.Descentwasoriginallypublishedintwovolumes,butthemodernfacsimilereferredtocombinestheseintoasin-glevolume;IhaveindicatedtheoriginalvolumetowhichIamreferringasiorii.67.C.Darwin[1871]1981,ii,399.68.Ofcourse,Darwinalsorecognisedthatthemechanismsofsexualselec-tionvariedfromspeciestospeciesaccordingtotheirmatingpatterns.69.Obviously,modernbiologistsrejectthishereditarymechanism;never-thelesswhatDarwinchristenedsexualselectionisstillregardedasanessentialpartofanorganism’soverall‘Darwinianfitness’.SeeCronin1991;G.Miller2000.70.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,258.71.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,259.72.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,259–60.73.E.Richards1983,60–1,64–5,78.EvelleenRichardsargues(p.78)thatDarwin‘putintomen’shandsthemodifyingandshapingpowerofthebreeder,andthathedidsoforthepurelyculturalreasonthatitwasinconceivabletothisproperVictorianthathumanevolutioncouldhavebeenmodifiedandshapedbyfemalecapriceorbyfemalesexualityandpassion’.74.E.Richards1983,66–7.75.C.Darwin[1871]1981,ii,343–54.76.C.Darwin1871,ii,369.77.E.Richards1983,68–9.Forfurthercomplementarydiscussion,seeR.J.Richards,thisvolume.78.C.Darwin[1871]1981,ii,326–7,372;E.Richards1983,73–6.79.C.Darwin[1871]1981,ii,328–9.80.C.Darwin[1871]1981,ii,329.81.E.Richards1983,87;cf.McCord1991,454.82.Cronin1991,172;moregenerally,seeErskine1995.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGeneration,pangenesisandsexualselection9583.SeePaul,thisvolume;E.Richards1983,72–3,94;McCord1991,453.84.C.Darwin[1871]1981,ii,403.85.DesmondandMoore1991,280,290,447;Hodge1985,218;Allan1977,127–8.86.C.Darwin1877;Ghiselin1969,143–5.87.OneofthefoundersoftheMendeliantheory,theDutchbotanistHugodeVries,didseehimselfasvindicatingpartsofDarwin’spangenesishypothesis.Forgeneralbackground,seeOlby1979.88.Geison1969,378–9;Oldroyd1980,141.89.SeeNyhart1996;Allen1994;MorrellandThackray1981;Desmond2001;andMorrell1990.Onprofessionalisation,Darwinismandthespontaneousgenerationdebates,seeStrick2000.90.Secord1981,175–6.91.C.Darwin[1875]1998,ii,361;E.Richards1997,119–20;Jann1994.92.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,271–3.93.C.Darwin[1871]1981,ii,122;E.Richards1983,77–9.94.E.Richards1983,87.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nrobertj.richards4Darwinonmind,moralsandemotionsihumanevolutionthroughhumboldtianeyesFromthebeginningofhistheorisingaboutspecies,Darwinhadhumanbeingsinview.Intheinitialpagesofhisfirsttransmuta-tionnotebook(NotebookB),heobservedthat‘evenmind&instinctbecomeinfluenced’astheresultofadaptationtonewcircums-tances.1ConsideringmattersasaLyelliangeologist,hesupposedthatsuchadaptationswouldrequiremanygenerationsofyoung,pliablemindsbeingexposedtoachangingenvironment.Afterall,CaptainFitzRoyhadattemptedto‘civilise’theFuegianJemmyButtonbybringinghimtoLondonandinstructinghimintheChris-tianreligion;butbackinSouthAmerica,Buttonrevertedtohisoldhabits,demonstrating,inDarwin’swords,thatthe‘childofsavagenotcivilizedman’–transmutationofmindwasnottheworkofaday.2Darwinhadnonethelessquicklybecomeconvincedthatoverlongperiodsoftimehumanmind,moralsandemotionshadpro-gressivelydevelopedoutofanimalorigins.Ashebluntlyexpresseditinhisfirsttransmutationnotebook:‘Ifallmenweredead,monk-eysmakemen.–Menmakeangels.’3Presumablythetransmuta-tionofhumanbeingsintothosehighercreaturesremainedfarinthefuture.FromJuly1837,whenhejottedtheseremarksinthefirstfewpagesofhisNotebookB,totheearly1870s,withthepublicationofhisDescentofManandExpressionoftheEmotionsinManandAnimals,Darwingraduallyworkedouttheoriesoftheevolutionofhumanmentalitythat,inthemain,westillaccept.Inthecaseof96CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinonmind,moralsandemotions97moralbehaviour,heproducedatheoryofitsevolutionthatstandsasamostplausibleempiricalaccount,anddisplaystherangeandsubtletyofhisthought.Thesetheoriesmeritcloseexaminationintheirownright.ButabetterunderstandingofthemcanalsoleadtoabetterunderstandingofDarwinhimself.Asweshallsee,thisVictoriangentleman’sconceptionofhumanmindhadrootstravers-ingalargeswathofnativeground,withsome,though,penetratingtoquiteforeignsoil,namely,Germanromanticism.Darwin’sconceptionofnature,aswellashisestimateofthatsmallernaturefoundinhumanbeings,tookdefiniteshapeduringhisfive-yearvoyageontheBeagle.HisexperiencesduringthejourneyoccurredwithinaframeworkalreadypreparedbyhisenthusiasticreadingofAlexandervonHumboldt’sPersonalNarrativeofTravelstotheEquinoctialRegionsoftheNewContinent,1799–1804,amulti-volumeworkthatoriginallysparkedhisdesiretosailtoexoticlands.4Indeed,whileastudentatCambridgehetooktocopyingoutlongpassagesfromthePersonalNarrativeandreadingthemtohisratherpatientfriends.WhenhegottheopportunitytoembarkontheBeagle,hebroughtalongHumboldt’svolumesashisvademecum.Humboldt,aproteg´eofGoetheandfriendofSchelling,represented´naturenotasastuttering,passionlessmachinethatgroundoutprod-uctsinarough-hewnmannerbutasacosmosofinteractingorgan-isms,acomplexwhoseheartbeatwithlaw-likeregularity,whileyetexpressingaestheticandmoralvalues.DarwindidnotplungefarbelowthesurfaceofHumboldt’sthought;buthenonethelessfeltthepoweroftheGerman’srepresentations.HeevenremarkedinhisdiaryduringthevoyagebacktoEngland:‘Astheforceofimpres-sionfrequentlydependsonpreconceivedideas,ImayaddthatallmineweretakenfromthevividdescriptionsinthePersonalNar-rativewhichfarexceedinmeritanythingIhaveeverreadonthesubject.’5Humboldt’snamelittersDarwin’sdiaryandthebookhemadeoutofit,hisJournalofResearches(1839).Thatadventurer’sro-manticconceptionofnaturewouldlieatthefoundationofalltheEnglishman’slaterworkonspeciesandespeciallyonthehumanspecies.6Thecreativeforceofnaturewouldoften,inDarwin’sesti-mate,workthroughthatmostmundaneyettranscendentfaculty–instinct.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n98robertj.richardsiitheoriesofinstinct,emotionandreasonpriortotheoriginThephenomenonofanimalinstinctwouldserveDarwinasthegroundforunderstandingitsoutgrowthinhumanreasonandmoralbehaviour.Heinitiallyemployedtheconceptionofinstinct,how-ever,moregenerallyinhisexplanationofspecieschange.PriortohavingreadMalthus,hehadformulatedseveraltheoriestoaccountforheritablemodifications.Themostprominenttheorydependedontheinheritedeffectsoftheuseoforgans,so-called‘use-inheritance’.Darwinassumedthatinachangedenvironment,ananimalmightadopthabitsthatwouldaccommodateittothenewconditions.Overmanygenerations,thesehabitswould,hebelieved,becomeinstinc-tive,thatis,expressedasinnatelydeterminedbehaviours.Suchin-stincts,intime,wouldslowlyalteranatomy,producingadaptivealterations,orsohesupposed.This‘viewofparticularinstinctbeingmemorytransmittedwith-outconsciousness’hadtheadvantage,hethought,ofdistinguishinghisexplanationofadaptivespecieschangefromLamarck’s,whichheinterpretedasappealingtoaconsciouswilling–‘Lamarck’swillingabsurd’,hetoldhimself.7EvenafterDarwinadoptednaturalselec-tionastheprincipalmeansforproducingspecieschange,hestillre-taineduse-inheritanceinhisexplanatoryrepertoire:itwouldbecomeoneofthosesourcesforvariationonwhichnaturalselectionmightwork;andinsomeinstances,hewouldsimplycredituse-inheritanceasthecauseofanattributethatcouldnoteasilybeexplainedbynat-uralselection.Afterhehadreturnedfromhisvoyage,DarwinoftenvisitedtheZoologicalSociety,wherehehaddepositedforanalysisandclas-sificationmanyoftheanimalspecimenshehadbroughtbackontheBeagle;hethushadfrequentoccasiontovisittheSociety’smenageries.DuringApril1838,hespentsometimewatchingtheapesandmonkeysatthegardens;andhereflectedontheiremo-tionaloutbursts,whichseemedtohimquitehumanlike.Hewasespeciallyinterestedinanorang-utanthat‘kicked&cried,preciselylikeanaughtychild’whenteasedbyitskeeper.8Inhisnotebooks,heplacedsuchtypicalreactionswithintheframeworkofhisthe-oryofinstinct:‘Expression,isanhereditaryhabitualmovementconsequentonsomeaction,whichtheprogenitordid,whenexcitedCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinonmind,moralsandemotions99ordisturbedbythesamecause,whichnowexcitestheexpression.’9So,forexample,Darwinspeculatedthattheemotionalresponseofsurprise–raisedeyebrows,retractedeyelidsandsoon–hadarisenbyassociationwithourancestors’effortstoseeobjectsindimlight;nowwhentheanalogouslyunexpectedobjectoreventconfrontedus,wewouldreactinaninstinctualway,eventhoughthelightwasperfectlyadequate.10Inthisconstruction,theexpres-sionofemotionthushadnoparticularusefulness;itwasunder-stood,rather,asakindofaccidentalholdoverfromthecustomarybehaviourofancestors.DarwinwouldretainthisbasicnotionaboutemotionaldisplayfortheaccounthewouldlaterdevelopintheEx-pressionoftheEmotionsinManandAnimals(1872).Emotionalex-pressionhaditsrootsininstinct,and,inDarwin’sview,reasondidaswell.InAugust1838,DarwinbeganreadingDavidHume’sInquiryConcerningHumanUnderstanding.11Hume’srepresentationofideasaslessvividcopiesofsensationsperfectlyaccordedwithDarwin’sintuitionsaboutthecontinuityofanimalandhumanmen-tality:forifideaswerebutcopiesofsensuousimpressions,thenanimalswouldbeperfectlycapableofthought.DarwindevelopedthissensationalistepistemologyinhisNotebookN,wherehepro-posedthatsimplereasoningconsistedinthecomparisonofsensoryimagesandthattherecollectionofseveralsuchimagesproducingapleasantstatewasoftheverynatureofcomplexthought.12AndjustasHumeunderstoodreasontobeakindof‘wonderfulandunintelli-gibleinstinctinoursouls’,13soDarwinthoughtintellectualactivitytobea‘modificationofinstinct–anunfolding&generalizingofthemeansbywhichaninstinctistransmitted’.14Humanintelligencewas,then,notopposedtoanimalinstinctbutgrewoutofitinthecourseofages.Infindingtheantecedentsofhumanrationalityinanimalsources,Darwinreallyopenednonewepistemologicalground.CarlGustavCarus,Goethe’sdiscipleandanauthorwhomDarwinreadinearly1838,assertedthedecidedlyromanticthesisthatmindandmat-terrantogetherthroughoutnature.AdoptingCarus’language,Dar-wincontemplatedanaturealivewithmind.Hereflectedthat‘thereisonelivingspirit,prevalentoverthisworld...whichas-sumesamultitudeofformsaccordingtosubordinatelaws’.AndlikeCarus,heconcludedthat‘thereisonethinking...principleCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n100robertj.richardsintimatelyalliedtoonekindofmatter–brain’andthatthisthink-ingprinciple‘ismodifiedintoendlessforms,bearingacloserela-tionindegreeandkindtotheendlessformsofthelivingbeings’.15Darwin’sassumptionofcognitivecontinuitybetweenmenandan-imalswouldnotevenhaveoffendedthereligiouslymindedamonghisowncountrymen.Severalnaturaltheologianswhomhereaddur-ingthelate1830sandearly1840s–JohnFleming,AlgernonWellsandHenryLordBrougham,forinstance–didnotblanchatfindingsomeglimmerofreasonexhibitedevenamongtheloweranimals.16Butnoanimal,intheestimationoftheseBritishwriters,gaveevidenceofanyhintofwhatwastrulydistinctiveofhumanmind–namely,moraljudgement.IfDarwinweretosolidifyhiscaseforthedescentofmanfromloweranimals,hewouldhavetodiscovertherootsofmoralbehaviourevenamongthosecreatures.Andsohedid.iiimoraltheorypriortotheoriginDarwin’sownmoralsensitivitiesreceivedconsiderableassaultdur-inghisSouthAmericantravels,especiallyfromtheBrazilianslavetrade.Hisfamilycultivatedstrongabolitionistsentiments,whichoriginatedwithbothofhisgrandfathers;andhissisterskepthiminformedabouttheeffortsinParliamenttoemancipatetheslavesintheBritishcolonies.17DarwinhadhisconvictionsreinforcedbythemanyobservationsHumboldthimselfhadmadeabouttheloath-sometradeinhumanbeings.18Darwin’sownfurycouldbebarelysuppressedwhenhewitnessedAfricanfamiliesbeingseparatedatslaveauctionsandslavesbeingbeatenanddegraded.WhenfinallytheBeagleleftBrazil,herejoicedthat‘Ishallneveragainvisitaslave-country.’Heperceivedimme-diatelythatutilitarianmotiveswoulddolittletorestrainthiskindofevil:‘Itisarguedthatself-interestwillpreventexcessivecruelty;asifself-interestprotectedourdomesticanimals,whicharefarlesslikelythandegradedslaves,tostiruptherageoftheirsavagemas-ters.Itisanargumentlongsinceprotestedagainstwithnoblefeel-ing,andstrikinglyexemplified,bytheeverillustriousHumboldt.’19Thislastremarkaboutthedeficienciesofutilitarianconsiderationstoadjudicatemoralresponsibilitycameintherevisededition(1845)ofDarwin’sJournalofResearches.Priortothistime,hedidmakeanCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinonmind,moralsandemotions101efforttofoundaninitialhypothesisabouttheevolutionofmoralsonutilitariangrounds.DarwinknewquitewellWilliamPaley’sMoralandPoliticalPhilosophy(1785)fromhisundergraduatedaysatCambridge.Now,whileexploringthevariousbranchesofhisdevelopingtheoryinearlySeptember1838,hemomentarilyadoptedPaley’scentralruleof‘expediency’.20Thisrulegroundedmoralapprobationinwhat,inthelongrun,wouldbeuseful,thatis,beneficialeithertoanin-dividualoragroupand,asaconsequence,wouldsupplytheplea-sureGodintendedformankind.21Darwingavethisruleabiologicalinterpretation:Sept8th.Iamtemptedtosaythatthoseactionswhichhavebeenfoundnec-essaryforlonggeneration,(asfriendshiptofellowanimalsinsocialanimals)arethosewhicharegood&consequentlygivepleasure,¬asPaley’sruleisthosethatonlongrunwilldogood.–alterwillinallsuchcasestohave&originaswellasrulewillbegiven.22Darwinheresuggestedthatthosehabitsthatpreservedanimals–suchasfriendshipandnurtureofyoung–musthavebeenprac-tisedovermanygenerationsandsobecameinstinctive.Whatwecall‘good’,then,arethoselong-term,beneficialinstinctsthathaveprovednecessaryforsocialcohesionanddevelopment.Hence,DarwinsupposedthatwhatPaleytooktobeaforward-lookingrule–acttoachievegeneralutilityinthefuture–mightbetrans-formedintoonedescribinginstinctsthatarosefromsocialbe-haviourswhichhadbeenbeneficialoverlongperiodsinthepast.ButthisbiologisedPaleyanethicsrecededfromDarwin’spurviewafterheexaminedavolumecontainingamorepenetratinganalysisofmorals–theScottishphilosopherJamesMackintosh’sDisserta-tiononProgressofEthicalPhilosophy(1836).InhisDissertation,Mackintosh–anadmiredrelativeofDarwin’s–objectedtoPaley’snotionthatselfishpleasureultimatelymotivatedrightaction.Mackintoshrathersidedwiththosewhobe-lievedinsteadthathumannaturecameoutfittedwithadeepsenseofmoralpropriety.Humanbeings,hebelieved,actedspontaneouslyforthewelfareoftheirfellowsandimmediatelyapprovedofsuchactionswhendisplayedbyothers.Yethedidnotdenytheutilityofmoralconduct.Inacoolhourwecouldassessmoralbehaviourandrationallycalculateitsadvantages;butsuchcalculationwasnot,heCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n102robertj.richardsthought,theimmediatespringofaction,whichlaycoiledinthehumansoul.Mackintoshthusdistinguishedthecriterionforrightconduct–utility–fromthemotiveforsuchconduct–aninnatedisposition.ThisanalysisfittedrathersmoothlyintoDarwin’sdevelopingcon-ceptionofmoralbehaviour,aconceptionthatbothappreciatedtheutilityofethicalbehaviourandrecogniseditsdeepbiologicalrootsaswell.Darwin’snotesonMackintosh’sDissertationreveal,how-ever,thathediscoveredajarringpatchintheoriginaltheory,butonewhichhebelievedhisownbiologicalapproachcouldpaveover.Thedifficultywasthis:Whatexplainedtheharmonyofthecrite-rionformoralconductandthemotiveforsuchbehaviour?Whywerewemovedtoactspontaneouslyinawaythatwemightlater,inamomentofreflection,recognisetohavesocialutility?NotimpressedwithMackintosh’sfaintappealtoadivineharmoniser,Darwinsuggestedthattheinnatemoralknowledgeweharbouredwasreallyaninstinctacquiredbyourancestors.Theinstinctdid,indeed,havesocialutility;but,likeallinstincts,ithadanur-gencynotconnectedwithanyrationalcalculationofpleasuresandpains.Suchinstincts,Darwinthought,wouldbesufficientlydiffer-entfromourothermoreabruptandmomentaryinstinctsinthattheywouldbepersistentandfirmandthusevokeamorereverentialfeeling.Darwinmovedwithalacrityalongthislineofthoughtbecauseinthisinstance,asinmanyothers,hefoundthathistheoryofbiolog-icaldevelopmentsolvedaproblemthatremainedlooseandfrayedinthehumanisticliterature.On3October1838,afewdaysafterMalthusfurnishedakeyinsightaboutadaptationofstructuretochangingconditions,theyoungnaturalistreformulatedhistheoryofmoralconsciencealongthelinessuggestedbyMackintosh.Darwinassumedthathabitsofparentalnurture,groupcooperation,commu-nitydefence,andsoon,wouldbesustainedovermanygenerations,drivingsuchhabitsintotheheritablelegacyofaspecies,sothattheywouldbemanifestedinsucceedinggenerationsasinstinctsformoralconduct.Theseinstinctswouldbedistinguishedfromfleet-inginclinationsandlesspersistentimpulses,whichmightoccurinonegenerationanddepartwiththenext.Whenanindividualwithsufficientintelligencerecalled,wellaftertheheatofthemoment,abehaviourelicitedbythesedeeplyingraineddispositions,heorsheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinonmind,moralsandemotions103wouldfeelrenewedsatisfactionandalsowouldbeabletoperceiveonreflectionthesocialutilityofthebehaviour.Darwinthussolvedtheproblemofthecoincidenceofthemoralmotiveandthemoralcriterion.Darwinworkedoutthebasicframeworkofhismoralconceptionwithouttheaidofthetheoryofnaturalselection.Moreover,whenhelaterbegantoapplythattheorytoexplaininstincts,hestumbledatthebrinkofayawningconceptualabyss,whichthreatenedtoswal-lowhisentiretheoryofevolutionbynaturalselection.Thecrucialdifficultywasthis:thesocialinstinctsmostfrequentlygaveadvan-tagetotherecipientsofmoralactions,nottotheiragents;butnat-uralselectionpreservedindividualsbecauseoftraitsadvantageoustothemselves,nottoothers.Darwinfirstmetthisdifficultywhenstudyingthesocialinsectsinthe1840s,whentheproblembecameevenmorecomplicated.Soldierbeesandantsdisplayedanatomicaltraitsandinstinctivebehavioursthatservedthewelfareoftheircolonies,notdirectlythemselves.Indeed,asoldierbeemightdefendthehiveatthecostofitsownlife.Moreover,theseinsectswereneuters;consequentlytheycouldnotinthefirstinstancepassbeneficialadaptationstosucceed-inggenerations.Howthencouldtheirother-regardingtraitsbeex-plained,and,moregenerally,howdidtheattributesofneutersarise?Darwinworriedaboutthisproblemforsometime,fearingitwouldallowtheCreatorareturntothoseprovincesfromwhichhehadlatelybeenbanished.23Onlyduringthefirstmonthsof1858,whilelabouringonthemanuscriptthatwouldbecome,initsabridgedform,theOriginofSpecies,didDarwindiscoverthesolutiontohisprob-lem.Heconcludedthat‘naturalselectionmightactontheparents&continuallypreservethosewhichproducedmore&moreaber-rantoffspring,havinganystructuresorinstinctsadvantageoustothecommunity’.24Thusthesoldierbeewhichsacrificeditslifeforthehivewouldhavehaditsinstinctshonedovergenerations,notbyindividualselectionbutbynaturalselectionpreservingthosehivesthathadindividualswithtraitsthatprofitedtheentirecommunity.Withthisaccount,whichhereiteratedintheOriginofSpecies,Darwinhadthekeytothepuzzleofhumanmoralaction:ashewouldargueintheDescentofMan,altruisticimpulseswouldgivetribalclansadvantagesoverotherclans,andthussuchinstinctswouldbecomecharacteristicofevolvinghumancommunities.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n104robertj.richardsivthemoralcharacterofnatureintheoriginDarwinisusuallytakentohaveintroducedintobiologyathor-oughgoingmechanism.Inthewordsofonesetofscholars:‘Natural-selectiontheoryandphysiologicalreductionismwereexplosiveandpowerfulenoughstatementsofaresearchprogramtooccasionthereplacementofoneideology–ofGod–byanother:amechani-cal,materialisticscience.’25Thissortofcold-bloodedDarwinism,itappears,leftmanmorallynakedtotheworld,sincenature,bereftofthedivinestamp,became‘morallymeaningless’–orsoitiscom-monlybelieved.26ButdidDarwinbelieveit?AstraightforwardreadingoftheOriginofSpeciesindicatesthatDarwinhardlyhadamachineinmindasthemodelfornature.Rather,hearticulatednaturesoastodisplayitsmoralspine.ThisshouldnotbesurprisingifonerecallsthatDarwinhadlookeduponwildnatureduringtheBeaglevoyagethroughHumboldtianeyes–eyesthathadaromanticglint.EventhesurfaceoftheOrigin’sconceptionsrippleswithmoralsuggestion.ConsiderDarwin’spre-sentationoftheveryideaofnaturalselection.Hecomparesitwithman’sselection,tothemoraladvantageoftheformer.Whereman‘selectsonlyforhisowngood’,natureselects‘onlyforthatofthebe-ingwhichshetends’.Natureisamodelnotonlyofselflessness,butofcareandindustry.Naturalselection‘isdailyandhourlyscrutinizing,throughouttheworld,everyvariation,eventheslightest,rejectingthatwhichisbad,preservingandaddingupallthatisgood;silentlyandinsensiblyworking,wheneverandwhereveropportunityoffers,attheimprovementofeachorganicbeinginrelationtoitsorganicandinorganicconditionsoflife’.27Canitbeanywonder,then,thattheproductionsofnatureare‘far“truer”incharacterthanman’sproductions’?Theyplainlymanifest,inDarwin’sresonantphrase,‘thestampoffarhigherworkmanship’.28Theliltingpoetryofthesephrasesmightbetakenasmerelydecorativemetaphor,notharbouringargumentativesubstance.ButalookbackatthepredecessorstothesephrasesinDarwin’sear-liermanuscriptssuggestsotherwise.Inapassagefromhisessayof1844,Darwinstrovetomakecleartohimself,throughimagesandmetaphors,theconceptionofaselectingnaturetowardswhichhewasgroping.Suppose,hewrote,thatabeingwithpowersofCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinonmind,moralsandemotions105perceptionfarsuperiortoman,andwith‘forethoughtextendingoverfuturecenturies’,were,with‘unerringcare’,todotheselecting.Thentherewouldbe‘noconceivablereasonwhyheshouldnotformanewrace’,adapted‘tonewends’.Furthermore,hissuperiorartand‘steadinessofobject’wouldproduceorganismsfarmoredifferentfromtheoriginalstock,withfargreater‘beautyandcomplications’intheiradaptations,thancomparableorganisms‘producedbyman’sagency’.29ThebeingthatDarwinhereimagineshasthosequalitieschar-acteristicoftherecentlydepartedDeity.Actingwithpreternaturalintelligence,itseesintothefuture,caresforthewelfareofitscrea-turesandselectsthemfortheirbeautyandprogressiveadaptations.Thisbeing,inmoremutedcolours,continuestooperateintheOriginofSpecies,wheretheguaranteeisissuedthatsince‘natu-ralselectionworkssolelybyandforthegoodofeachbeing,allcorporealandmentalendowmentswilltendtoprogresstowardsperfection’.30Despitehavingbecomeamorereservedindividual,DarwinyetportrayednatureintheOriginofSpeciesintheman-nerthathehadabsorbedfromhisHumboldtianexperiencesduringhisyouthfulvoyageofadventure,namely,natureashavingamoralandaestheticintelligence.Itis,then,notsurprisingthatwhenheturnedspecificallytoconsiderthedistinctivecharacterofhumanbeings,hedidnotleavethembereftofthosetraitsheaccordednature.vthedebatesoverhumanevolution,1859–71Inthelate1860s,Darwininitiallyapproachedtheproblemofhumanevolutionquitemodestly.Hehadoriginallyintendedtoconsiderhumanbeingsonlyfromthepointofviewofsexualselection,whichhethoughtcouldexplainthedifferentattributesofmalesandfemalesofthemanyracesofmankind.HeengorgedthesecondpartofTheDescentofMan,andSelectioninRelationtoSex(1871)withdetaileddiscussionsofsexualselectionthroughouttheanimalkingdom,withonlythelasttwosubstantivechaptersdevotedtohumansexualdi-morphismandracialdifferences.Hearguedthatmalecombatforfemalesamongourancestorswouldhavecontributedtothemale’slargersize,pugnacity,strengthandintelligence.Inhisview,theparticularfeaturesoffemalebeautyinthedifferentraces–generallyCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n106robertj.richardshairlessbodies,castofskin,shapeofnose,formofbuttocksandsoon–arosefrommalechoice.Womengenerallydisplayedthetendervirtues;buttheirintellectualattainmentswerelargelydue,Darwinthought,toinheritancefromthemaleparent.InalettertoayoungAmericanfemalecollegestudent,hedidventurethatifwomenwenttouniversityandwereschooledovergenerationsasthesonsofthegentrywere,thentheywould,viause-inheritance,becomeasintel-ligentasmen.Butwerethistohappen,‘wemaysuspectthattheearlyeducationofourchildren,nottomentionthehappinessofourhomes,wouldinthiscasegreatlysuffer’.31Severaleventsoccurredduringthe1860sthatcausedDarwintoalterthelimitedintentionshehadforhisbookonhumandescent.Earlyinthedecade,hisgreatfriendCharlesLyellwadedintotheundulatingopinionsformingabouthumanevolutioninthewakeoftheOrigin.ButthehedgingargumentofhisAntiquityofMan(1863),whichdisplayedastylefamiliarattheOldBailey,droveDarwintodistraction.ThoughLyelladmittedthephysicalsimilarityofhumanbeingstootherprimates,heyetarguedthatthementalandmoralconstitutionofhumansplacedthemfaraboveanyotheranimalsinthescaleofbeing.Linguisticabilityinparticulardemonstratedthewidegulfseparatingthemindofmanfromthatofanimals.Thiswasnochasmthatcouldbebridgedin‘theusualcourseofnature’.Themovefromanimalstoman,Lyellintimated,hadtobecarriedonthewingsofadivinespirit.32AlfredRusselWallaceinitiallystoodreadytocombatLyell’sthe-ologicalconstructionofhumanmindandmorals.Inalecturedeliv-eredtotheAnthropologicalSocietyofLondonin1864,heproducedaningeniousdefenceofthenaturalisticposition.Hearguedthatnat-uralselection,operatingonouranimalforebears,producedthevari-ousracesofmen,thoughnotyettheirdistinctivementalandmoralcharacters.Onlyaftertheseracesappearedwouldnaturalselectionoperateonthevariousclansandtribes,preservingthosegroupsinwhichindividualsdisplayedsympathy,cooperationand‘thesenseofrightwhichchecksdepredationuponourfellows’.33ThreefeaturesofWallace’saccountoftheevolutionofhumanmindandmoralsstandout.First,heconceivedtheselectiveenvironmenttobeotherproto-humangroups–whichwouldhaveanacceleratingeffectontheevolutionaryprocess,sincesocialen-vironmentswouldrapidlychangethroughresponsivecompetition.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinonmind,moralsandemotions107Second,heproposedthatselectionworkedonthegroup,ratherthantheindividual–whichallowedhimtoexplaintheriseofaltruisticbehaviour,thatis,behaviourperhapsharmfultotheindividualbutbeneficialtothegroup.Inhisoriginalessayonthetransmutationofspecies(1858),Wallaceconceivedofthestruggleforexistenceasoccurringamongvarietiesinsteadofindividuals.34Hecontinuedtothinkinsuchgrouptermswhenconsideringtheevolutionofmoralbehaviour.Finally,inanotetothepublishedversionofhistalktotheAnthropologicalSociety,hementionedthathewasinspiredtodevelophisthesisbyreadingHerbertSpencer’sSocialStatics.35Spencer’sownearlybrandofsocialismhadpulledWallacetohisside.InSocialStatics(1851),Spencerhadenvisionedagradualandcontinualadjustmentofhumanbeingstotherequirementsofcivilsociety,withindividualsaccommodatingthemselvestotheneedsoftheirfellows,sothateventuallyaclasslesssocietywouldemergeinwhichthegreatesthappinessforthegreatestnumberwouldberealised.36Spencerassumedthattheinheritanceofusefulhabitswouldbethemeansbywhichsuchevolutionaryprogresswouldoc-cur,whileWallacebelievednaturalselectiontobetheagentofthatprogress.DarwinwelcomedWallace’ssolutiontotheevolutionofhumanmorality,sincehehimselfhaddevelopedcertainviewsaboutcom-munityselectioninsocialinsectscongenialtohisfriend’sposi-tion.Darwinwouldemphasise,however,thatthemembersofsmalltribes,ofthesortWallaceenvisioned,wouldprobablyberelated;andsoadisadvantagetoagivenindividualpractisingaltruismwouldyetbeoutweighedbytheadvantageofthepracticetorecipientrela-tives.Ultimately,however,Darwinwoulddropthisqualification,andsimplyembracegroupselectionasoperativeinhuman(andan-imal)societies.37Wallace’sfaithinanaturalisticaccountofhumanevolutionaryprogressneverthelesssuccumbedtotheevidenceofhigherpowersatworkintheland.Thoughraisedasamaterialistandagnostic,Wallacehadchancedtoattendaseance,whichpiquedhisempiri-´cistinclinations.Shortlythereafter,in1866,hehiredamediuminordertoinvestigatethephenomenausuallyattendantontheinvo-cationofthespiritworld.Wallace,gentlesoulthathewas,becameatruebeliever(unlikeDarwin,whoregardedspiritualismasrubbish).Wallace’snewconvictionfocusedhisattentiononcertainhumanCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n108robertj.richardstraits–nakedskin,language,mathematicalability,ideasofjusticeandabstractreasoninggenerally–whichwouldconfernobiologi-caladvantageonindividualsinalowstateofcivilisation.Indeed,Wallacebelievedthat,forsheersurvival,humanbeingsneedabrainnolargerthanthatofanorang-utan,orperhapsonecomparabletothatoftheaveragememberofaLondongentleman’sclub.Suchtraitsasabstractreasoningandmoralsensitivity,therefore,couldnotbeexplainedbynaturalselection.Yetinbothaboriginalandadvancedsocieties,individualsdisplayedthesequalities.WhilehisfriendHerbertSpencerregardedsuchpropertiesasexplicableonlythroughuse-inheritance,38Wallacefoundauniqueexplanatorymodeofselectionthathisnewfaithcouldprovide.39Inhisestimation,dis-tinctivelyhumantraitshadbeenartificiallyselectedforus:‘asupe-riorintelligence’,heproposed,‘hasguidedthedevelopmentofmaninadefinitedirection,andforaspecialpurpose,justasmanguidesthedevelopmentofmanyanimalandvegetableforms’.40Humanswerethuslikedomesticanimalsinthehandsofhigherspiritualpowers.Theirsuperintendenceoftheselectionprocesshadensuredthatdistinctivelyhumantraits,forhumanadvantage,hadwonoutinthelongstruggleforexistence.WhenDarwinlearnedofWallace’sturnabout,hewasdumbfounded:‘ButIgroanoverMan–youwritelikeameta-morphosed(intheretrogradedirection)naturalist,andyoutheauthorofthebestpaperthateverappearedintheAnthropologicalReview!’41ThoughWallace’sflighttootherpowersthannaturewasfuelledbyhisnewfaith,thecruxofhisargumenthadforce:sincenaturalselectionoperatedonlyontraitsthatprovidedsomeimmediatebiologicaladvantage,howmightoneexplainhumantraitsthatseemednotparticularlyusefulatall?Anotherwriter,thoughfriendlytotheDarwiniancause,yetspiedacomparableproblemintheassumptionofhumanevolutionaryprogress.WilliamRatherboneGreg,Scotsmoralistandpoliticalwriter,discoveredthatakeenmoralsensemightspreadseedsofwickedgrowth.Ahighlycivilisedsociety,heremarked,wouldbeinclinedtoprotectnotonlythephysicallyweakfromthewinnowinghandofnaturalselectionbuttheintellectuallyandmorallydegen-erateaswell.Soprotected,theinferiortypeswouldhavetheoppor-tunitytooutbreedtheirbetters.Greg,aScotsgentlemanofrefinedsensibility,regardedthecaseoftheIrishascautionary.WhiletheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinonmind,moralsandemotions109‘careless,squalid,unaspiringIrishman’siredoffspringearlyandoften,the‘frugal,foreseeing,self-respecting,ambitiousScot’delayedmarriageandhadfewchildren.TheprofligateanddegenerateIrishyetseemedtobewinningtheevolutionaryraceinthetraitthatcounted–reproduction.‘Intheeternal“struggleforexistence”’,Gregconcluded,‘itwouldbetheinferiorandlessfavouredracethathadprevailed–andprevailedbyvirtuenotofitsgoodqualitiesbutofitsfaults.’42TheconsiderationsofLyell,WallaceandGregspurredDarwintoexpandhisintendedvolumeonsexualselectiontotackletheseapparentbarrierstoanaturalisticunderstandingofhumanevolution.InthefaceofGreg’sargument,DarwincollectedintheDescentconsiderableevidenceaboutthefortunesofthereprobate.Onthebasisofthisevidence,hemaintainedthatmanynaturalcheckstothelessfitwouldultimatelyforestalltheiradvance:thedebauchedwouldsufferhighermortality,criminalswouldsirefeweroffspring,andthebadwouldlikelydieyoung.43YetitcouldbethatthelikesoftheIrish,thoughdecidedlylessable,wouldsimplycrowdouttheBritish.Afterall,thoughevolutionaryprogresswasgeneral,itwas‘noinvariablerule’.44vimindinthedescentLyell’sandWallace’sobjectionstotheapplicationofnaturalselec-tioninthecaseofmanprovedmoredifficulttocounterthanGreg’s,buttheybroughtDarwintoseveralingenioussolutionstotheprob-lemsposed.Linguisticabilitystoodchiefamongthefeaturesofin-telligencethathadtobeconsidered.Indealingwiththisproblem,DarwinrevertedtoatheoryhehadinitiallyentertainedinhisNote-bookN,whichhekeptin1838and1839.Therehesoughttode-velopanaturalisticaccountoftheoriginoflanguage.Hesupposedthatouraboriginalancestorsbeganimitatingsoundsofnature(e.g.,‘crack’,‘roar’,‘crash’)andthatlanguagedevelopedfromthesesim-plebeginnings.45Inthelate1860s,whileworkingontheDescent,Darwinmadefrequentenquiriesofhiscousin,thelinguistHensleighWedgwood,abouttheoriginoflanguages.WedgwoodhadallowedthatitwaspartofGod’splantohavemaninstructed,asitwere,bythenaturaldevelopmentofspeech.Hearguedthatlanguagebe-ganfromaninstinctforimitationofsoundsofanimalsandnaturalCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n110robertj.richardsevents,whichunder‘pressureofsocialwants’developedintoasys-temofsigns.46Darwinembracedthisconfirmationofhisoriginalideas,though,ofcourse,dispensingwiththetheologicalinterpre-tation.Darwinalsoreliedonanotherbookinformulatinghisthesisaboutthefunctionoflanguageinhumanevolution.ThiswasbyaGermanlinguist,AugustSchleicher,afriendandcolleagueofthemorphol-ogistErnstHaeckelandanewconverttoDarwiniantheory.InhisDieDarwinscheTheorieunddieSprachwissenschaft(Darwiniantheoryandthescienceoflanguage,1863),SchleichermaintainedthatcontemporarylanguageshadgonethroughaprocessinwhichsimplerUrsprachenhadgivenrisetodescendentlanguagesthatobeyednaturallawsofdevelopment.47HearguedthatDarwin’sthe-orywasthusperfectlyapplicabletolanguagesand,indeed,thatevolutionarytheoryitselfwasconfirmedbythefactsoflanguagedescent.Inasubsequentpamphlet,SchleicherhimselfconstructedthekindofargumentthatDarwinwouldemployintheDescent,thatis:‘theformationoflanguageisforuscomparabletotheevo-lutionofthebrainandtheorgansofspeech’.48Schleichermain-tainedthattheseverallanguagesofmankindproducedthevarioustypesofminddisplayedbythedifferentraces.ErnstHaeckeltookupthisargumentinhisNaturlicheSchopfungsgeschichte¨(TheNaturalHistoryofCreation,1868),whichDarwinreadwhilecomposingtheDescent.DarwinwrotetoafriendafterreadingHaeckel’sworkthatitwas‘oneofthemostremarkablebooksofourtime’.49Darwin’snotesandunderlininginthebookarequiteextensive.Hewasparticularlyinterested,asshownbyhisscoringsandmarginalia,inHaeckel’sac-countofSchleicher’sthesisthattheevolutionoflanguagewasthematerialsideoftheevolutionofmind.50HerethenDarwinhadacounter-argumenttoWallace’s,onebywhichhecouldsolidifyanevolutionarynaturalism.DarwinconcededthatWallacehadbeencorrect:forsheersur-vival,ouranimalancestorshadsufficientbrainpower.Buthecouldnowbluntthefurtherimplicationofhisfriend’sargument.CitingSchleicher,hearguedintheDescentthatdevelopinglanguagewouldreboundonthebrain,producingmorecomplextrainsofideas;andconstantexerciseofintricatethoughtwouldgraduallyalterbrainstructures,causingahereditarytransformationand,consequently,aprogressiveenlargementofhumanintellectbeyondthatnecessaryformeresurvival.51CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinonmind,moralsandemotions111Darwin’sgeneraltheoryoftheriseofhumanintellectthusde-pendedontheinheritanceofacquiredcharacteristics,oratleastthatisoneofthestrandsofargumentheemployed.Yetitwasnottheonlystrand.Darwin’sexplanationsintheOriginandtheDescentwererhetoricallyrobust–ifthereaderdidnotlikeonelineofconsideration,theauthorwasreadywithanotherline.Hissecondstrandofargumentreliedoncommunityselection.IntheDescent,Darwincontendedthatifatribeofouraboriginalancestorscon-tainedamongitsmemberssomemute,ingloriousNewton,anindi-vidualwhothroughinventivenessandintellectualprowessbenefitedhistribeincompetitionwithothertribes,thenheandhisrelativeswouldsurviveandreproduce.52Darwinenunciatedhereanideathatbearsstrongaffinitiestowhatisnowknownas‘inclusivefitness’.Aheritabletraitthatconferslittleornobenefitonanindividualbutsufficientlyadvancesthecauseofrelativeswillbepreservedandspreadalongwiththegroup.Darwinfirstdevelopedthistheoryofcommunityselectiontosolvetheproblemoftheevolutionofthesocialinsects;itnowbecamethekeytounderstandingtheevolu-tionofsocialhumanbeings.viimoralsinthedescentInthefirstvolumeoftheDescent,thequestionofhumanmoraljudgementoccupiedthegreatestmeasureofDarwin’sattention.Moralsensewasbycommonconsentthatattributemostdistinctiveofhumanbeings.BothLyellandWallacecouldnotconceivethatarefinedmoralsensemighthavearisennaturallyfromanimalstock.Afterall,moralbehaviourdidnotproveparticularlybeneficialtothoseexercisingit–hencenaturalselectioncouldnotaccountforit.Inexplainingtheriseofmoralbehaviour,Darwinagainmovedfromtheindividualastheobjectofselectiontothecommunity.While‘ahighstandardofmorality’indeedconferredsmallornoadvan-tagestoindividuals,tribesofindividualsendowedwith‘patriotism,fidelity,obedience,courage,andsympathy’,andthereadiness‘togiveaidtoeachotherandtosacrificethemselvesforthecommongood’,wouldbe‘victoriousovermostothertribes;andthiswouldbenatu-ralselection’.Furthermore,asthevictorious,moraltribessupplantthedefeated,immoralonesthroughouttheworld,‘thestandardofmoralityandthenumberofwell-endowedmenwillthuseverywheretendtoriseandincrease’.53CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n112robertj.richardsCommunityselectionprovedaningeniouswaytounderstandtheevolutionofhumanaltruism.Ityethaditsowndifficulty:Howdothesemoraltraitsarisewithinonetribeinthefirstplace?Afterall,asDarwinnoted,itisnotlikelythatparentsofanaltruistictemperwouldraisemorechildrenthanthoseofaselfishattitude.Moreover,thosewhowereinclinedtoself-sacrificemightleavenooffspringatall.54Darwinemployedhistheoryofuse-inheritancetoexplaintheoriginofsuchsocialbehaviourswithinagiventribe.Heproposedtworelatedsourcesforsuchbehaviours.Thefirstistheprototypeofcontemporarytheoriesofreciprocalaltruism.Darwinobservedthat,asthereasoningpowersofmembersofatribeim-proved,eachwouldcometolearnfromexperience‘thatifheaidedhisfellow-men,hewouldcommonlyreceiveaidinreturn’.Fromthis‘lowmotive’,asheregardedit,eachmightdevelopthehabitofperformingbenevolentactions,whichhabitmightbeinheritedandthusfurnishsuitablematerialonwhichcommunityselectionmightoperate.Thesecondsourcereliedontheassumptionthat‘praiseandblame’ofcertainsocialbehaviourswouldfeedouranimalneedtoenjoytheadmirationofothersandtoavoidfeelingsofshameandreproach.Thiskindofsocialcontrolwouldalsoleadtoheritablehabits.55Onesalientobjectiontoanytheoryofthebiologicalevolutionofmoralconductpointstotheoftenverydifferentstandardsofac-ceptablebehaviourinvariouscultures.Darwinrecognisedthatwhatmightbeapprovedasmoralinoneageandsocietymightbeexecratedatadifferenttimeandplace.TheFuegiansmightstealfromothertribeswithouttheslightestremorseofconscience,whileanEnglishgentlemanwouldregardsuchbehaviourwithcontempt.Butmem-bersofthesevastlydifferentcultureswould,nonetheless,commonlyendorsetheobligationtodealsympatheticallyandbenevolentlywithmembersoftheirownparticulargroup.TheEnglishgentlemanandlady–or,perhaps,theirdescendants–withmoreadvancedintel-lectswouldhavelearnedthattribalandnationaldifferencesweresuperficial;andthustheywouldhaveperceivedauniversalhuman-ityunderlyinginessentialtraits.Theirowninstinctivesympathieswouldthushavebeentrainedtorespondtoallhumanbeingsasmembersofacommontribe.InDarwin’sconception,then,evolutionwouldhavemouldedthemostprimitivehumanbeingstoreactaltru-isticallytobrothersandsisters;butovertheages,culturallearning,CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinonmind,moralsandemotions113coupledwithincreasedintelligence,wouldrevealjustwhothosebrothersandsistersmightbe.56‘Philosophersofthederivativeschoolofmorals’(e.g.,BenthamandMill),Darwinobserved,‘formerlyassumedthatthefounda-tionsofmoralitylayinaformofSelfishness;butmorerecentlyinthe“GreatestHappinessprinciple”’.57Virtuallyallscientistsandphilosopherswhohaveconsideredthematterhavelocatedtheseutil-itarianprinciplesatthefoundationofanevolutionaryconstructionofethics.MichaelGhiselinprovidestheprototypicalexample.Hehasarguedthat,accordingtoDarwin’stheory,sinceanaltruisticactfurthersthecompetitiveabilityofselfandfamily,thatactis‘reallyaformofultimateself-interest’.58RichardDawkins,ade-fenderofDarwin,yetwarned‘thatifyouwish,asIdo,tobuildasocietyinwhichindividualscooperategenerouslyandunselfishlytowardsacommongood,youcanexpectlittlehelpfrombiologicalnature’.59Thesesentiments,quiteobviously,donotreflectDarwin’sownview.Ourmoralinstincts,hebelieved,wouldurgeustoactforthebenefitofotherswithoutcalculatingpleasuresandpainsforself.Andsincesuchaltruisticimpulses,atleastinadvancedsocieties,wouldnotbeconfinedtofamily,tribeornation,heconfidentlycon-cludedthathistheoryremoved‘thereproachoflayingthefounda-tionofthemostnoblepartofournatureinthebaseprincipleofselfishness’.60viiitheexpressionoftheemotionsThoughDarwinbelievedthathumanintelligenceandmoralre-sponseshadtheirrootsintheanimalmind,heconcededthatthesefacultieshadyetdevelopedfarbeyondthoseofourprogenitors.Bycontrast,heconsideredhumanemotionsandtheirdisplaynottohavecomparablyprogressed.Thefeardisplayedbyhislittledogoverawind-blownparasoldifferedlittle,hethought,fromthatofthena-tivewhotrembledbecauseinvisiblespiritsmightbecausingalight-ningstorm–or,asDarwinintimated,fromtheChristian’sfearofthewraithofanunseenGod.61CertainlyfewEnglishsportsmenwouldhavedifficultyreadinghuman-likeemotionsofftheexpressionsdis-playedbytheirdogs.ThebeliefthathumanssharedcomparableemotionsandexpressionswithanimalsaccordedwithacommonintellectualtraditionthatcaneasilybetracedbacktoAristotle.YetCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n114robertj.richardsDarwin’sownevolutionaryanalysisinhisExpressionoftheEmotionsinManandAnimals(1872)hasapeculiarand,forus,anunexpectedcontour,whichcanonlybeunderstoodinthelightofanunusualtheoryworkedoutbyoneofhiscontemporaries.SirCharlesBell’sTheAnatomyandPhilosophyofExpression(1844)displaysaresearchphysician’sdetailedknowledgeoffacialanatomyandadevotedhumanist’sunderstandingofemotionalde-pictioninartandliterature.Bellarguedthatthesmilesandfrowns,laughsandsighs,beamsandgrimacesofthehumancountenancefunctionedasanaturallanguagebywhichonesoulcommunicatedwithanother.Ultimatelythisrepertoireofsigns,heasserted,referredbacktoitsdivineauthor,who‘haslaidthefoundationofemotionsthatpointtoHim,affectionsbywhichwearedrawntoHim,andwhichrestinHimastheirobject’.62ThusaccordingtoBell,theexpressionoftheemotionsservedforcommunication,humananddivine.DarwinreadBell’sbookwithconsiderableinterest.Hefocusedonthephysician’sprecisedescriptionsofthestructureandoperationoffacialmusclesduringtheexpressionofemotions.Hedenied,how-ever,thetheologicalfoundationforemotionalexpressionthatBelldivined.ButinrejectingBell’sparticularconceptionoftheutilityofemotionalresponse,herejectedcompletelyallnotionsofutilityfortheexpressions.Emotionaldisplay,tobesure,hadanevolu-tionaryhistory.Darwin’smanycomparisonsoffacialmovementsinchildren,adults,theinsane,aswellasinapes,dogsandcats–donewiththeaidofphotographyandsketches–showedsimilaritiesacrossages,sexesandmentalcapacities.Thiskindofcomparativeevidencebespokeacommonoriginforemotionalexpression.Butsincehecoulddiscovernosocialorcommunicativefunctionintheseemotionalreactions–unlikeneo-Darwinianstoday–histheoryofnaturalselectiondidnotreadilyapply.63Instead,Darwinappealedtoanumberofotherprinciples,especiallyhisnotionthatinstinctivere-actionscouldderivefrompracticesthathadbeen,bydintofexercise,scoredintotheheritablesubstance.Hearguedthatamongourances-tors,ifacertainmentalstatewasoftenaccompaniedbyactionsthatbroughtrelieforgratification,thenthoseactionsthereafteraccom-paniedthementalstate–forexample,theturningawayandthewrin-klednoseofdisgust,elicitedoriginallybythesightofsomerepulsiveobject,mightagainbedisplayedduetothefeelingalone.DarwinCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinonmind,moralsandemotions115calledthisthe‘principleofserviceableassociatedhabits’andusedittoexplainvariouslyfrowning,dejection,smilingandsoon.64Heformulatedtwomoreprinciplestohandleotherkindsofexpression.The‘principleofantithesis’specifiedthatwhencertainactionswereconnectedwithaparticularstateofmind,anoppositestatewouldtendtoelicitanoppositeaction.Forinstance,ahostiledogwillstandrigidwithtailstiffandhairerect,whileadocile,happyanimalwillcrouchlowwithbackbentandtailcurled.Finally,therewastheprinciple(borrowedfromHerbertSpencer),accordingtowhichaviolentemotionmightspillovertoadjacentnervepathwaysandproduceanoutwardeffect–when,forexample,greatfearcausedtrembling.65ixconclusionAmongthemanysourcesforDarwin’sideasaboutnature,Germanromanticismsuppliedoneofthedeeperandmorepowerfulcurrents.TheanatomistRichardOwenservedasoneespeciallyimportantcon-duitforthistradition.HisGoetheanmorphologyandSchellingianarchetypetheory,suitablyreconsidered,formedstaplesofDarwin’sownintellectualrepertoire.Thedoctrineofembryologicalrecapitu-lation,afundamentalfeatureofGermanromanticbiology,becameamainsupportingpillarofDarwin’sgeneraltheory.66Darwinmod-elledhisJournalofResearchesonHumboldt’sPersonalNarrative;andHumboldt,thatdoyenofGermanscienceinthefirsthalfofthecentury,returnedthecomplimentbysinglingoutinhisbookKosmosthemeritsoftheyoungEnglishadventurer.67Humboldtconceivednatureasanorganismexhibitinginteractingparts;andDarwin,rejectingtheclockworkuniverseofhisEnglishheritage,discoveredmanyingeniouswaysoftracingoutthoseorganicinter-actionsintheOrigin.Humboldt’snaturehadthoseaesthetic,moralandcreativepropertiescharacteristicoftheretiredDeity;andtheseareexactlythefeaturesexhibitedbynaturalselection.WeusuallytakethemeasureofDarwin’sideaslookingbackward,fromthepho-tographbyJuliaCameron,whoportrayedDarwinasasadEnglishprophet.Butinhisyouth,thisfuturefixtureoftheVictorianestab-lishmentsailedtoexoticlands,becameintoxicatedwiththesub-limityoftheirenvirons,andtestedhismettleagainsttheforcesofmanandnature.Likemanyoftheromantics,healsodiscoveredtheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n116robertj.richardshumancoreofthatnature,andcontinuallyreckonedwithitasheconstructedhisgeneraltheoryofevolution.Mind,moralsandemotionsoccupiedDarwin’sattentioninhisearlynotebooksandfoundplacesevenwithintheOriginofSpecies,whichostensiblyavoidedtheproblemofhumanevolution.HisargumentativestrategyintheDescentandintheExpressionoftheEmotionscontinuedthatoftheOrigin.Heemployedvastamountsofempiricalevidencegatheredfrommanydifferentsourcesandwasabletoshowthatwhenproperlyjuxtaposed,evolutionaryconse-quencesquitenaturallyfollowed.Buthedidnotsimplyrelyontheobservationsofothers.He,ofcourse,madeuseofhisownexperienceontheBeaglevoyage,especiallyhisknowledgeoftriballifeamongtheIndiansofSouthAmericaandhisencounterswiththeslavetrade.Further,hestuffedthesebookswithexperimentsandmathematicalcalculationsofhisowndevising.Thelanguageofhisargumentsandexperimentsdidnothavethedry,crustysoundofmanyoftheem-piricalstudiesfromwhichhedrew.Hisprosehadapoeticliltandhistropes,suchasnaturescrutinisingtheinternalfabricoforgan-isms,allowedthereadertofeelthemorecomfortablepresenceofalargerpowerwatchingoveralloflife.TheHumboldtianmessagewasthatnaturewasnomeaninglessmachine,butanintelligentandmoralagent,tobeunderstoodthroughaestheticjudgementaswellasanalysis.OnDarwin’saccount,naturehadamultiplydependentstruc-ture.Darwin’sargumentsoftenmirroredthatstructure.Hewouldadvanceseveralpossiblecausestoexplainthesameevent,holdingthoseeventsinatangledbankoforganicrelations.Thus,notonlydidheaccountforman’sbigbrainbyappealtogroupselection,hehadtheinheritedeffectsoflanguagebywhichtoreinforcehisnat-uralistictheory.Hesecuredhumanmoralcharacterwiththeinter-actingforcesofcommunityselection,reciprocalaltruismandincul-catedhabit.Theprincipalforce,communityselection,alongwithanevolvingintellect,wouldensurethathumannaturemightpreserveanauthenticmoralcore.Asheinterpretedhisownaccomplishment,histheorythusescapedthereproachofgroundinghumanmoralca-pacityin‘thebaseprincipleofselfishness’.Darwin’ssubtle,artisticeffects,alongwithhisvoluminousevidenceandcompellingargu-ments,haverenderedhisconclusionspowerfuleventodayforthesuppleofmind.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinonmind,moralsandemotions117notes1.Barrettetal.1987,CharlesDarwin’sNotebooks,NotebookB,MSp.3(hereafterB3).2.B4.3.B169andB215.4.Humboldt[1814–29]1966.5.Keynes1988,443.6.R.J.Richards1999and2002b.ForfurtherdiscussionofHumboldt’scontributiontoDarwin’sconceptionofnature,seeSloan,thisvolume.7.C171andC63.8.DarwintoSusanDarwin(1April1838),inF.Burkhardtetal.1985–2001,Correspondenceii,80(hereafterCCD).9.M107.Doublewedge-bracketsindicatealaterinsertionintotheentry.10.M95.11.SeeM104andDarwin’sReadingNotebooks,inCCDiv,438(DarwinPapers,Cambridge,DAR*119:3v).12.N21e.13.Hume[1739]1888,179.DarwinreferstothispassageinN101,andremarks:‘Humehassection(IX)onReasonofAnimals...heseemstoallowitisaninstinct.’14.N48.15.C210e.Iread‘world’forthetranscription‘word’.DarwinstudiedCarusintranslation.SeeCarus1837.16.SeeespeciallyFleming1822,i,220–2;Wells1834,20;andBrougham1839,175.Darwin’scopyofFleming,withannotations,isheldintheManuscriptRoomofCambridgeUniversityLibrary.HisnotesonBroughamandWellsare,respectively,inN62andN68–72.Hewrote:‘Lr.Brougham...saysanimalshaveabstractionbecausetheyunderstandsigns.—veryprofound.—concludesthatdifferenceofintellectbetweenanimals&menonlyinKind[sic,degree].’17.SeeSusanDarwintoDarwin(3–6March1833),inCCDi,299.18.SeeHumboldt1814–29,iii,3.19.C.Darwin[1860]1962,497.20.Paley[1785]1806,i,89–90.21.Paley,[1785]1806,i,76.22.M132e.23.ThisproblemandotheraspectsofthedevelopmentofDarwin’smoraltheoryaremoreextensivelydiscussedinR.J.Richards1987,chs.2and5.24.C.Darwin1975,510.25.Lewontinetal.1984,51.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n118robertj.richards26.S.F.Cannon1978,275.27.C.Darwin[1859]1964,83–4.28.C.Darwin[1859]1964,84.29.C.Darwin1909,85.30.C.Darwin[1859]1964,489.31.DarwintoCarolineKennard(9January1882),DarwinPapers,Cambridge,DAR185.ForfurtherdiscussionofDarwin’sargumentsonsexualselection,seeEndersby,thisvolume.32.Lyell1863,505.33.Wallace[1864]1991,clxiii.34.DarwinandWallace1958,268–79.35.Wallace[1864]1991,clxx.36.Spencer[1851]1970.Spencer’sowntrajectorymovedfromanearly,youthfulenthusiasmforradicalsocialism(withlandheldincommon)tothelaissez-faireindividualismofhislateryears.SeeR.J.Richards1987,chs.6–7.37.Darwingeneralisedhisconceptofcommunityselectiontoincludewhatistodaycalledgroupselection–thatis,selectionofgroupsofindividualsfortraitsthatbenefitthegroup,evenifitsmembersarenotrelated.BythesixtheditionoftheOrigin(1872),inapassagethatunderwentgradualchangethroughtheeditions,heasserted:‘Insocialanimalsit[naturalselection]willadaptthestructureofeachindividualforthebenefitofthecommunity;ifthecommunityprofitsbytheselectedchange.’Fortheseveralpassages,seeC.Darwin1959,172.38.Spencercontendedthatthehighermentalpowersrequireddelicateco-adaptationofelementaltraitsthatthemselvescouldhaveprovidednoadvantagesingly.Moreover,manymentalpowers–aestheticpreference,forinstance–hadnosurvivalvalueatall,andcouldnot,therefore,havearisenbynaturalselection.SeeSpencer[1864–7]1884,i,454–5.39.WallacewrotetoDarwin(18April1869)tosaythathisalteredviewabouthumanevolutionderivedfromhisempiricaltestingofthemedium’spower.SeeMarchant1916,i,244.40.Wallace1870,359.41.DarwintoAlfredWallace(26January1870),inMarchant1916,i,251.42.Greg1868,361.DarwinquotesthispassagewithsomerelishinC.Dar-win[1871]1981,i,174.43.C.Darwin,[1871]1981,i,174–80.44.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,177.45.SeeN65.SeealsoR.J.Richards2002a.46.SeeWedgwood1866,13–14and129.47.Schleicher1863.SeealsoTaub1993andAlter1999,73–9.48.Schleicher1865,21.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinonmind,moralsandemotions11949.DarwintoWilliamS.Dallas(9June1868),DarwinPapers,Cambridge,DAR162.50.Darwin’scopyofHaeckel1868isheldintheManuscriptRoomofCam-bridgeUniversityLibrary.ForDarwin’sannotations,seeDiGregorio1990,359–60.51.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,57.52.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,161.53.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,166.54.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,163.55.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,163–5.56.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,100–1.57.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,97.58.Ghiselin1973,967.59.Dawkins1976,3.60.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,98.61.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,67–8.62.Bell[1844]1873,78.63.Onthepresent-daydiscussionaboutDarwinismandemotionalexpres-sion,seeFlanagan,thisvolume.64.C.Darwin[1872]1998,ch.1.65.C.Darwin[1872]1998,chs.2and3.66.SeeR.J.Richards1992,91–166.67.Humboldt1845–62,ii,72.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nc.kennethwaters5TheargumentsintheOriginofSpeciesioriginsandcharacteroftheoriginReadingOntheOriginofSpeciesisariteofpassageformanybiol-ogistsanditsreasoningcontinuestoplayapivotalroleinbiologicalthought.Itisoftensaid,followingDarwinhimself,thattheOriginis‘onelongargument’(459).1Thereissomethingimportantinthisremark.ReadersexpectingtheOrigintobestructuredaroundanar-rativeaccountfindthebookperplexing.UnliketheparadigmaticearlyVictorianbookonevolution,theEdinburghjournalistRobertChambers’VestigesoftheNaturalHistoryofCreation,publishedanonymouslyin1844,theOriginwasnotwrittenasahistoryoflife’sevolutiononearth.2Rather,theOriginwasstructuredasanargument.Hence,Darwin’sinsistencethathisbookwasonelongargumentprovidesanindispensableclueforreadingthetext.3Butitisnotclearthatitshouldbereadasoneargument.AlthoughDarwinmayhavedesignedhisbooktobereadasonelongargumentforevo-lutionbymeansofnaturalselection,manyofhisreadersmusthavereaditdifferently.WeknowthisbecausetheOriginpersuadedmanyreaderstoacceptthe‘evolution’ideabutnotthe‘bymeansofnaturalselection’partofDarwin’sview.4Thesereaderswerenotswayedbyonelongargumentforevolutionbymeansofnaturalselection.So,tounderstandthereasoningthatinfluencedDarwin’sreaders,itisbet-tertothinkoftheOriginasabodyofargumentationflexibleenoughtoallowreaders’viewsofthereasoningtodifferfromwhatDarwinmighthaveintended.TheaimofthischapteristoprovideaguidetotheOrigin’sflexibleandsometimeselusivebodyofreasoning.CharlesDarwinwrotetheOriginasanabstract,notascien-tifictreatise.InDarwin’sday,treatiseswerethetypicalvehiclesfor120CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nTheargumentsintheOriginofSpecies121advancingawide-scalerevisionofascientificfield.LikeCharlesLyell’sPrinciplesofGeology,theywereusuallymulti-volumed,carefullydocumentedandfilledwithtechnicaldetails.5Darwinorig-inallysummarisedhisideasonevolutioninunpublishedessayscom-pletedin1842and1844.6Theseinformalessayswerenotintendedtobetreatises.Apartfromtellingafewfriends,Darwinkepthisevolutionaryideastohimselfandpreparednothingforpublicationonthesubjectuntil1856,whenhebeganwritingafull-scaletrea-tise.ThisworkwasinterruptedtwoyearslaterwhenhereceivedanunpublishedarticlefromAlfredWallacewhichanticipatedmanyofDarwin’sownideasaboutevolution,includingtheideaofnatu-ralselection.7ThispromptedDarwintosetasidethemassivebookinprogress–eventuallyeditedandpublishedbyR.C.Staufferin1975–andtowriteanabstract,whilefriendsarrangedtohaveshortextractsfromDarwin’searlierwritingsincludedwiththepublica-tionofWallace’sarticle.8DarwincompletedtheabstractwithinninemonthsandcalleditOntheOriginofSpeciesbyMeansofNaturalSelection.9Unlikethepartiallywrittentreatise,theabstract–theOrigin–wasnotinatechnicalstylenorcopiouslyreferenced.Instead,itcloselyfollowedthetoneandformofthetwoinformalandunpublishedessaysthatDarwinhadcomposedonthetopicnearlytwodecadesbefore.DarwinrevisedtheOriginfivetimesandwroteprolificallyonevo-lutionuntilhisdeathin1882,butheneverreturnedtotheprojectofthelargetreatise.10Nevertheless,despitetheOrigin’sinformal-ity,orperhapsbecauseofit,Darwinachievedtheaimofthemostambitiouswritersofscientifictreatises:heledscientiststoalterdramaticallythewaytheyinvestigatedandexplainedawidevari-etyofphenomena.Infact,theOriginelicitedamoredramaticshiftofthoughtthanthatbroughtaboutbyanyscientifictreatiseoftheVictorianorperhapsanyera.ThishastilywrittenabstractpushedDarwin’scontemporariestorevisetheirfundamentalassumptionsabouttheplaceofhumansinnature.iitwocentralideasintheorigin:thetreeoflifeandnaturalselectionThereasoningintheOrigininvolvestwocentralideas:thetreeoflifeandnaturalselection.Accordingtothefirstidea,specieschangeCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n122c.kennethwatersovertime,withsomespeciesgoingextinctwhileotherscontinueorsplitintomultipledescendentspecies.Darwinillustratedtheresult-ingpatternasdivergingbranchesofatree.Thesecondidea,naturalselection,offeredanaccountofhowspeciescouldchange.Accord-ingtothisidea,specieschangedthroughaprocessofselectionakintothemethodofartificialselectionthatbreedersusedtomodifydomesticatedvarietiesofplantsandanimals.Inadvancingthetreeoflife,Darwinchallengedthethennearlyuniversalviewthatspecieswereimmutable.Thisplacedhiminop-positiontotwosetsofwell-establishedbeliefs.Thefirstsetcon-cernedinheritance.Althoughnotmuchwasunderstoodaboutin-heritance,biologistsgenerallybelievedthattherangeofvariationwithinagivenspecieswasfixed.Theythoughtthereweredefinitelimitstohowfarindividualscouldvaryfromtheirspeciestype.Theyrecognisedexceptionstothisrule,suchastherareappearanceoftwo-headedturtles;buttheybelievedthatsuchexceptionsusuallyperished,andthat,whentheysurvived,theirmonstroustraitswerewashedoutintheprocessofinheritance.Theseideasimpliedthattheformofanygivenspeciescouldnotchangebeyondfixedlimits.Thesecondsetofbeliefsthatposedachallengetothetreeoflifeconcernedthewell-establishedphenomenaofadaptation.Workinthetraditionofnaturalhistoryindicatedthatspecieswereperfectlyadaptedtotheirenvironments.Thisraisedafundamentalquestionthatconfoundedearlyadherentstoevolution:ifspeciesarealwaysperfectlyadaptedtotheirenvironments,orevenjustextremelywell-adapted,howcouldspecieschangeandyetremainwell-adapted?Darwinansweredthisquestionwiththeideaofnaturalselection.NaturalselectionplaysthedominantroleinDarwin’spluralisticaccountofthecausesresponsibleforevolution.Accordingtothisidea,evolutionarychangeisbroughtaboutbythe‘selection’ofin-dividualswithvariationsthatgivethemanadvantageforsurvivalandhenceabetterchancetoproducedescendants.Theirdescen-dantsarelikelytoinheritthesevariationsandhencethedescendentgenerationswillgraduallyshifttowardstheformsofthefittestpar-ents.Darwinillustratedtheprocesswithahypotheticalexample.Wolvesmightappearwithaslightvariationthatmakesthemfleeterandmorecapableofcapturingprey.Suchwolveswouldhaveanad-vantageoverwolveslackingthistrait,andhencethefleeterwolveswouldproducemoreoffspring.TheiroffspringwouldbelikelytoCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nTheargumentsintheOriginofSpecies123inheritthevariationforswiftnessandhencetheprevalenceofthevariationwouldincreaseinthenextgeneration.Darwinclaimedthisprocesswouldrepeatitself,generationaftergeneration,untilthetraiteventuallybecameestablishedinthespecies.Whenthisprocessofvariation,selectionandinheritancerepeatsitselfoverthousandsandthousandsofgenerations,thedescendantsoftheoriginalspecieswillhavenewfeatureswhichwilldistinguishthemmarkedlyfromtheirdistantancestors.ThetreeoflifeandnaturalselectionplayeddistinctrolesintheOriginanditisimportanttodistinguishbetweenthem.Itisalsohelpfultokeepinmindthatthetreeoflifeitselfinvolvestwodifferentideas:theideaofonespecieschangingintoanother,ortransmutation;andtheideaofspeciessplittingintotwoormorespecies,resultingincommondescent.Theclaimofcommonde-scentdistinguishesDarwin’stheoryofevolutionfromthoseofhisprecursors.AlthoughDarwindidn’tinsistthatallspeciesarere-latedthroughasinglecommonancestor,heheldthatallanimalsdescendedfromatmostfourorfiveancestralspeciesandallplantsfromatmostfour(484).Thisideaislogicallydistinctfromtransmu-tation,becauseindividualspeciesmightdramaticallychangeovertimewithouteversplitting.Eachspeciesmighthaveitsown,firstancestorfromwhichitevolved.ThisiswhatLamarckbelieved.Hisaccountofevolutionincludedasmanydistinctspontaneousgenera-tioneventsastherearespecies.Eachspontaneousgenerationeventgaverisetoaseparatelineage,witheachlineageevolvingalongoneoftwoorthreeevolutionarypathways.11OnLamarck’saccount,am-phibianshavefish-likeancestors,buttheydonothaveanyancestorsincommonwithtoday’sfish.OnDarwin’saccount,however,today’samphibiansandtoday’sfishdohaveancestorsincommon.TheideaofcommondescentislogicallydistinctfromDarwin’sideathatnat-uralselectionisthedominantmechanismoftransmutation.Naturalselectionmightoccurwithoutthesplittingofonespeciesintotwoandsuchasplittingmightbebroughtaboutbyaprocessthatdoesnotinvolvenaturalselection.iiioverallstructureoftheoriginDarwindidnotwritetheOriginasastorybeginningwithalife-lessEarthandculminatingwiththeappearanceoftoday’sspecies.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n124c.kennethwatersInstead,hebeganwithartificialselection,themethodbreedersusedtoalterdomesticvarieties.Why?JonathanHodgeandothershaveansweredthatDarwinintendedtoconstructanargumentforhistheoryinaccordancewiththeidealforscientificreasoningsetoutbyhiscontemporary,JohnHerschel.Herschelclaimedthatthebestexamplesofscienceestablishatruecause,orveracausa.Establish-ingaveracausa,accordingtoHerschel,entailsdemonstratingthreethings:(1)theexistenceofthecause;(2)theadequacyorcompe-tenceofthecausetoproducetheeffectstobeexplained;and(3)theresponsibilityofthecausefortheeffects.Herschelinsistedthatdemonstrationsoftheexistenceandadequacyofthecausemustbeindependentofthereasonswehaveforthinkingthatthecauseisactuallyresponsibleforcertainphenomena.12ItiseasytounderstandwhyDarwinbegantheOriginwitharti-ficialselectionifweassumethathewastryingtoestablishnaturalselectionasaveracausa.Inbrief,heusedartificialselectionasawayofintroducinghisargumentfortheexistenceofnaturalselectionandthendrewananalogybetweenartificialandnaturalselectioninor-dertoarguefortheadequacyofnaturalselection.Inthefirstchapter,heshowedthatartificialselectionisthecauseofchangeindomesticracesandidentifiedthiscausewithtwocomponents:variationandselection.Hethenarguedthatnaturalcounterpartstothesecompo-nentsexistinnatureinthesecondandthirdchapters.Darwinarguedfortheadequacyofnaturalselectionbyappealingtotheanalogybetweenartificialandnaturalselection.Hisbasicar-gument,presentedinthefourthchapter,wasthatcomponentsakintothosefornaturalselection–variationanddifferentialfitness–areadequatefortransformingvarietiesinthedomesticsituation,sothesimilar(butmuchstronger)componentsinnaturemustbead-equatefortransformingspecies.(Theargumentssketchedherearedescribedindetailinthesectionsthatfollow.)Thisaccountseemstoleavethethirdcomponentofnaturalselection,inheritance,outofthepicture.Darwindealtwithinheritanceasabackgroundcompo-nent,onethatobviouslyexistsinnatureasitdoesinthedomesticsituation.Hence,thequestionforDarwinwasnotwhetherinheri-tanceexistsinnature.Ofcourseitdoes.Thequestionwaswhetheritaffectstheadequacyofnaturalselection.Darwinansweredthisquestionwiththeanalogicalargument.DarwincommencedhiscasefortheresponsibilityofnaturalselectioninthefifthchapterbyshowingthathisviewcouldexplainCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nTheargumentsintheOriginofSpecies125Table5.1TheOrigin’soverallargumentstructureGeneraldescriptionChaptersHerschelianofpartinterpretationPart1Presents1–4DemonstratestheobservationsfromexistenceandnaturalhistoryadequacyofandananalogicaltransmutationbyargumentfrommeansofnaturalartificialselectionselectionPart2Dealswitha6–9Someargumentsdefendmiscellaneoustheideathatcollectionoftransmutationbyproblemsmeansofnaturalconfrontinghisselectionisadequate,viewothersdefendtheideathatitisactuallyresponsiblePart3Explainshowhis5,10–13Demonstratestheviewcanexplainresponsibilityofmanygroupsoftransmutationbyfactsmeansofnaturalselectionmanygroupsoffacts,rangingfromembryologytothegeographicdistributionofspecies.Darwin’sargumentsforexistenceandade-quacy,containedinchapters1to4,areseparatefromhisargumentsconcerningresponsibility,whicharecontainedinchapters5to13.Hence,theOriginisstructuredtosatisfyHerschel’sdemandthattheadequacyandexistenceofaveracausabeestablishedindependentlyofitsresponsibility.Chapters5to13areallaimedtowardsshowingthatDarwin’sthe-oryidentifiestheveracausaofawiderangeofphenomena.However,adivisionisapparent.Chapters6to9addresscriticismsofhisview.Theremainingchapters(5,and10to13)providepositiveargumentstotheeffectthatDarwin’stheoryidentifiesthecausesresponsibleforthephenomena.Hence,theOriginislooselyorganisedintothreeparts,asrepresentedintable5.1.Contemporaryhistoriansandphilosophershaveofferedavari-etyofalternativeinterpretationsofthestructureandlogicoftheOrigin.13MichaelRusehasarguedthatDarwindrewupontheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n126c.kennethwatersepistemologicalidealsofWilliamWhewellasmuchashediduponthoseofHerschel.BothWhewellandHerschelbasedtheiridealsforscienceonNewtonianphysics.Bothemphasisedtheimportanceofestablishingacause.ButWhewellthoughtacausecouldbeestab-lishedsolelyonthebasisofconsilience,thefeatofshowingthatawidevarietyofapparentlyseparatephenomenacanbeexplainedasaresultofthesamecause.14Darwin’sclaim,thatphenomenarangingfromembryologytobiogeographicaldistributioncanbeexplainedintermsoftransmutationbymeansofnaturalselection,adherestoWhewell’sidealofconsilience.RuseacknowledgesthatDarwin’sappealtotheanalogybetweenartificialandnaturalselectionfittedHerschel’sidealfordemonstratingaveracausa,butRusebelievesthechapterscoveringtheanalogyandthestruggleforexistencearenotcrucialelementsofDarwin’sargument.Ruse’sinterpretationhastextualsupport.InthethirdpartoftheOrigin,Darwinclaimedthattheabilityofhisviewtoexplainpar-ticulargroupsoffactswoulditselfestablishhistheory:‘Finally,theseveralclassesoffactswhichhavebeenconsideredinthischapter,seemtometoproclaimsoplainly,thattheinnumerablespecies,gen-era,andfamiliesoforganicbeings,...havealldescended,...fromcommonparents,andhaveallbeenmodifiedinthecourseofdescent,thatIshouldwithouthesitationadoptthisview,evenifitwereun-supportedbyotherfactsorarguments’(457–8).Nevertheless,suchremarksdonotalterthefactthatDarwinstructuredtheOrigininawaythatadheredtoHerschel’sidealofdemonstratingtheexistenceandadequacyofacauseindependentlyofone’sreasonsforthinkingthecausewasresponsibleforparticularphenomena.WhenDarwinclaimedthathisbookwasonelongargument,hehadHerschel’sidealinmind.Itappears,insum,thatifone’sgoalistoclarifyDarwin’sownreasoning,thentheargumentsintheOriginarebestinterpretedintermsofhowtheyfitintotheoverallHerschelianscheme.Inter-pretedinthisway,theOriginwasindeedonelongargumentforevolutionbymeansofnaturalselection.Thisinterpretationiscon-sistentwiththeargumentationofDarwin’smostprominentcritics,whofrequentlytookaimatDarwin’sclaimthatnaturalselectionwasadequatefortransmutingspecies.15Butmanysympatheticreaders,thosewhowerepresumablyswayedbyhisreasoning,hadadiffer-entunderstandingofDarwin’sargumentation.FormanyofDarwin’sCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nTheargumentsintheOriginofSpecies127supportersrejectedtheideaofnaturalselectioneventhoughtheyac-ceptedthetransmutationandcommon-descenttheses.ThiswouldnotmakesenseontheHerschelianinterpretation.Ifnaturalselec-tionisremoved,theallegedveracausavanishes,theHerschelianargumentcollapses,andthereisnoreasonforacceptingtransmu-tationorcommondescent.ThissuggeststhatsympatheticreadersfoundadifferentargumentintheOrigin,onethatdidnotdependonthelineofreasoningthatnaturalselectionexisted,wasadequateandactuallycausedthebroadrangeofphenomenadescribedthroughoutthethirdpartoftheOrigin.Althoughitiswellknownthatmanyifnotmostnineteenth-andearlytwentieth-centuryevolutionistsremainedhighlyscepticalofnaturalselection,scholarshavenotanalysedtheOrigin’sreasoningtodeterminewhetheritprovidescompellingargumentsfortrans-mutationandcommondescentthatdonotdependonthepremisethatnaturalselectionistheunderlyingcause.Intheanalysisthatfollows,IwillconsiderwhethertheOrigin’sargumentationwassuf-ficientlyflexibletoprovidecompellingargumentsforevolutionin-dependentlyofnaturalselection.Iwillshowthatmanyofthear-gumentsdependwhollyuponnaturalselection(certainlythoseinthefirstpart),butotherarguments,ifreadfromaWhewellianper-spective,offerastrongcasefortransmutationandcommondescentregardlessofwhethernaturalselectionistakentobepartoftheveracausa.ivreasoninginthefirstpartoftheorigin:theargumentfromartificialselectionThefirstpartoftheOrigincontainsfourchapters,whichdiscuss,inturn,artificialselection,variationinnature,thestruggleforex-istence,andnaturalselection.16Thereasoninginthispartisorgan-isedaroundananalogicalargument.Thisargumentdrawsparallelsbetweenthecomponentsofartificialselectionthatareresponsibleforthedevelopmentofdomesticatedracesandcomponentsinna-ture.Darwinarguesthatthethreecomponentsfornaturalselec-tionarepresentinnature,hencedemonstratingtheexistenceofnaturalselection.Thenhearguesthatsincesimilarelementspro-ducenewbreedsandcultivarsinthedomesticsituation(bymeansofartificialselection)thecorrespondingconditionsinnatureareCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n128c.kennethwatersadequateforproducingnewspeciesinnature(bymeansofnaturalselection).Darwin’saccountofnaturalselectionincludesthreecausalcom-ponents:1.Variationsappearwithinaspeciesoftenwithnorelationtoadaptiveadvantage.2.Somevariationsprovidetheirbearerswithanadvantageinthestruggletoliveandreproducewithintheirenvironment.3.Variationsareoftentransmittedtoprogenythroughinheri-tance.Darwinestablishedtheexistenceofthefirstcomponentinthesec-ondchapter,bydescribingtheubiquityofvariationamongplantsandanimalsinnature.Heestablishedtheexistenceofthesecondcomponentinthethirdchapter,wherehepointedoutthatnaturemustprovidecheckstothepotentialgeometricincreaseinpopula-tionsizeandhenceorganismsmustcompetewithoneanotherforreproductivesuccess.Heexaminedthestruggleforexistenceinthischapteraswell,toshowthatminoradvantagescouldtipthebalancetowardssomeorganisms.17Thisestablishedaconnectionbetweenvariationandtheabilitytoleavedescendants.Thethirdcomponent,theinheritanceofvariations,wasdealtwithinlargepartonthebasisofartificialselection.AlthoughtheanalogybetweenartificialandnaturalselectionismentionedthroughouttheOrigin,itisdiscussedmostfullyinthefourthchapter,onnaturalselection.18Theprimaryroleoftheanal-ogyinthischapterwastohelpDarwinestablishtheclaimthatnat-uralselectioncould,overmanygenerations,producemodificationsofthemagnitudethatseparatefullyfledgedspecies(Herschelianad-equacy).Darwin’sappealtoanalogyfittednicelywiththeleadingaccountsofscientificreasoningofhisday.ButDarwinhadspecialreasontouseananalogy:hehadlittleknowledgeofthelawsgov-erningtheproductionandinheritanceofvariations.Hehadalreadyadmittedinthefirstchapterthatthelawsofvariationwere‘various,quiteunknown,ordimlylit’(12)andthatthelawsconcerninginheritancewere‘quiteunknown’(13).DarwinhadnotheoreticalaccountintheOriginofwhyinheritanceshouldsupporttheaccumu-lationofvariationsoversuccessivegenerations.Butthefactthatthemechanismsofinheritance,whatevertheywere,hadsupportedsuchCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nTheargumentsintheOriginofSpecies129Table5.2Darwin’sanalogybetweenartificialandnaturalselectionArtificialselectionNaturalselectionVariationsproduced(throughVariationsproduced(throughunknownmechanism)unknownmechanism)ManselectsvariationsNatureselectsvariations(by(sometimesbyconsciousprovidingconditionsthatgiveeffortsandoftenbyorganismswithcertainvariationsaunconsciousmeans)betterchancetoliveandreproduce)Variationsinherited(throughVariationsinherited(throughunknownmechanism)unknownmechanism)ThethreefactorsabovecausetheThethreefactorsabovecausetheproductionofdomesticracesproductionofthenaturalcounterparttodomesticraces,which,Darwininferred,werefullyfledgedspeciesaccumulationswhenhumansperformedartificialselectionsimpliedthatthesameshouldhappenwithnature’sselections:‘asmancancertainlyproducegreatresultsbyaddingupinanygivendirectionmereindividualdifferences,socouldNature’(82).Darwin’sstrategywastomatchspecificinformationaboutartifi-cialselectionwithinformationaboutitsnaturalcounterpartinordertoinferthattheresultsofthetwoprocessesmustalsocorrespond.Darwin’sargumentdependeduponmatchingtheelementsofartifi-cialandnaturalselectionasillustratedintable5.2.Byassumingthatthefactorsunderlyingtheproductionandinher-itanceofvariationswerethesameforartificialandnaturalselection,Darwincouldinferthatwhateverwasbroughtaboutbythesefactorsunderartificialconditionscouldalsobebroughtaboutundernaturalconditions.Butthefactorsforselectionwerenotthesameandthisposedadifficultyfortheanalogicalargument.Darwindealtwiththisdifficultybycarefullycomparingthewaymanmadeselectionswiththewayselectionsweremadeinna-ture.AlthoughmostcommentatorsassumethatDarwinbasedhisanalogicalargumentsonananalogyfromtheresultsofconsciousef-fortsofman,healsoappealedtoadifferentkindofartificialselection:CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n130c.kennethwatersInman’smethodicalselection,abreederselectsforsomedefiniteobject,andfreeintercrossingwillwhollystophiswork.Butwhenmanymen,withoutintendingtoalterthebreed,haveanearlycommonstandardofperfection,andalltrytogetandbreedfromthebestanimals,muchimprovementandmodificationsurelybutslowlyfollowfromthisunconsciousprocessofse-lection,notwithstandingalargeamountofcrossingwithinferioranimals.Thusitwillbeinnature[....](102)Darwinhadalreadyestablishedinthefirstchapterthatunconsciousselectionhadresultedinsignificantmodificationofplantsandan-imalsunderdomestication.Hence,eventhoughnaturalselection‘willalwaysactwithextremeslowness’and‘oftenbegreatlyre-tardedbyfreeintercrossing’,Darwinhadreasontobelievethat,likeunconsciousartificialselection,itcouldstillresultinsignificantmodification(108).Darwin’sanalogicalargumentfacedaseconddifficulty:thedivi-sionbetweennaturalspeciesismuchgreaterthanthedivisionsepar-atingartificialvarieties.Havingmatchedthecausalinputs,howdidDarwinjustifyhisconclusionthatthecausaloutputs(naturalspeciesversusdomesticvarieties)wouldbesodifferent?Darwinemployedadualstrategy:firsthearguedthatthedifferencesbetweendomesticracesandnaturalspecieswerenotasgreatasmanyassumed(13–16),andthenhereasonedthattheactualdifferencesinoutcomescouldbeaccountedforbydifferencesintheselectionprocesses:Asmancanproduceandcertainlyhasproducedagreatresultbyhisme-thodicalandunconsciousmeansofselection,whatmaynotnatureeffect?Mancanactonlyonexternalandvisiblecharacters....[Nature]canactoneveryinternalorgan,oneveryshadeofconstitutionaldifference,onthewholemachineryoflife....Howfleetingarethewishesandeffortsofman!howshorthistime!andconsequentlyhowpoorwillhisproductsbe,com-paredwiththoseaccumulatedbynatureduringwholegeologicalperiods.(83–4)Inasense,Darwinwasestimatingwhatwouldresultifmancouldmakethesamekindsofselectionsthatweremadeinnature.19ManyofDarwin’scriticsattackedthismoveanditiseasytounderstandwhymanyofhissympathisersreservedjudgementontheadequacyofnaturalselection.TheOrigindidmorethansimplyadvancebasicevolutionaryclaims;italsointroducednewwaystoinvestigateandexplainCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nTheargumentsintheOriginofSpecies131biologicalphenomena.ThefirstpartoftheOriginlegitimisedthis,notjustbyarguingfortheexistenceandadequacyofnaturalselec-tion,butalsobyeasingreadersintoDarwin’spatternsofevolutionaryreasoning.Darwinluredreadersintohisnewwaysofreasoningbyintroducingthistypeofreasoningintheuncontroversialsettingofbreedingtechniques.Havingestablishedthecoherenceofhisreason-ingpatternsinthisuncontroversialcontext,hecouldmoreplausiblyarguethatthesamepatternsshouldbeappliedtonature.Forexample,Darwindevotednearlytenpagestotracingthean-cestryofdomesticpigeons.Itwaseasytoshowthatseveralraceswerebredfromcommonancestors.Darwindenouncedtheviewthatdomesticatedracesofpigeonswereeachderivedfromasepa-rateaboriginalstockas‘rashintheextreme’(26).Throughcarefulanalysis,hedeterminedancestralrelationsamongdifferentracesofpigeons.Bystartingwithwhatmusthaveseemedtobeaperfectlyre-spectableproblem,evenbytheorthodoxstandardsofhisday,Darwinwasabletoillustratetheeffectivenessofhisinvestigativeandexplanatorystrategieswithoutrelatingthemtocontroversialissuesofevolution.Intentionalornot,theeffectofapplyinghisinvestigativeandex-planatorystrategiestoproblemsthatseemeduncontroversialmusthaveledreaderstothinkthatanalogousproblemsconcerningnaturalspeciesandanalogousstrategiesforsolvingthemcouldbelegitimatepartsofscientificpracticeeveniftheydidnotaccepthisclaimthattransmutationinnaturecloselyresembledartificialselection.Hisdenunciationofthosewhowouldarguethateachraceofpigeonwasindependentlyderivedfromaseparateaboriginalstockwasperhapsathinlyveiledstrikeagainstthosewhobelievedintheindependentcreationofeachspecies.Startingwithartificialselectionwasasmartrhetoricalmove.vapreviewofthethirdpartoftheoriginDarwinbeganthetasksofshowingwhathisviewcouldexplainandillustratinghowitcouldbeusedtoinvestigateawidevarietyofphenomenainthefifthchapter(seetable5.1).Analysingthischap-tershedslightontheissueofwhethertheOriginofferscompellingargumentsfortransmutationandcommondescentthatdonotde-pendonnaturalselection.TheissuecomesdowntothequestionCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n132c.kennethwatersofwhathastobeincludedin‘myview’whenDarwinclaimedthathisviewcouldexplainphenomenathatindependentcreationcouldnot.Wouldsuchclaimsretaintheirplausibilityifby‘myview’read-ersleftoutnaturalselectionandpluggedinonlytransmutationandcommondescent?Iwillexaminetwoargumentsfromchapter5toshowthatDar-win’suseof‘myview’wasambiguous.Sometimeshisreasoningde-pendedonincludingnaturalselectionaspartofhisview,butothertimesthereasoningrequiredonlytransmutationandcommonde-scent.ThefirstargumentconcernsalawattributedtothezoologistG.R.Waterhouse:‘Apartdevelopedinanyspeciesinanextraordi-narydegreeormanner,incomparisonwiththesamepartinalliedspecies,tendstobehighlyvariable’(150;italicsomitted).Darwinshowedhowhisviewcouldexplainthislawbyappealingtotheanalogybetweenartificialandnaturalselection.Henotedthatwhenartificialselectionisappliedtobringabouttherapidtransformationofcertainpartsofadomesticbreed,thosepartsareparticularlyliabletovariation.Thereis,Darwinexplained,‘aconstantstrugglegoingonbetween,ontheonehand,thetendencytoreversiontoalessmodifiedstate,aswellasaninnatetendencytofurthervariabilityofallkinds,and,ontheotherhand,thepowerofsteadyselectiontokeepthebreedtrue’(152–3).So,Darwinconcluded,‘wemight,asageneralrule,expectstilltofindmorevariabilityinsuchpartsthaninotherpartsoftheorganisation,whichhaveremainedforamuchlongerperiodnearlyconstant’(153).ThisisnottheonlyplacewhereDarwinappealedtoartificialselectioninordertoestablishhowhisviewcouldexplainvariousgroupsoffactsthatwereotherwisein-explicable.WhenDarwinappealedtotheanalogy,readersneededtoinsertnotjusttransmutationandcommondescentinto‘myview’,butalsonaturalselection(ortheargumentwouldbeweakened).ButthereweremanycaseswhereDarwinillustratedtheinvestigativeandexplanatorypowersofhisviewthatdidnotdependonnaturalselection.Oneofthosecasesinvolvedthelawofuseanddisuse.Thelawofuseanddisusestatesthatwhenorgansareenhancedthroughuse,theenhancementstendtobeinheritedbyprogeny;andwhenorgansatrophythroughdisuse,progenytendtoinheritdimin-ishedorgans.TheOrigin’streatmentofthelawofuseanddisuseincludesadiscussionthatexplicitlyshowshowtransmutationandCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nTheargumentsintheOriginofSpecies133commondescentcanexplainfactsontheirown,thatis,withoutnaturalselection.DarwinconsideredthelackofeyesinthecavefishofAmericaandinthecavefishoftheEuropeancontinent.Henotedthatthesefishliveunderextremelysimilarconditionsoflife(‘limestonecavernsunderanearlysimilarclimate’(138)).Next,hegrantedthattheseanimalslosttheireyesthroughthelawofdisuseandnotbymeansofnaturalselection(‘Asitisdifficulttoimaginethateyes,thoughuseless,couldbeinanywayinjurioustoanimalslivingindarkness,Iattributetheirlosswhollytodisuse’(137)).20Third,hearguedthaton‘myview’onewouldexpecttheanimalsinAmericancavernstoresemblemorecloselyanimalsinthesurround-ingAmericancountrythananimalsinEurope(andviceversa).Thenhestated,citingobservationsofnaturalists,thatthisisexactlywhatoneobserves.Darwinremarked:‘Itwouldbemostdifficulttogiveanyrationalexplanationoftheaffinitiesoftheblindcave-animalstotheotherinhabitantsofthetwocontinentsontheordinaryviewoftheirindependentcreation’(139).Darwinwassuggestingthathisviewwaspreferabletotheviewofindependentcreationbecausehisviewcouldexplainthisphenomenonwhilethealternativeviewcouldnot.WhatwasDarwin’s‘view’inthisdiscussion?Itwasnotevolutionbymeansofnaturalselectionbecauseheadmittedthatnaturalselectionisnotresponsibleforthedisappearanceofeyes.By‘myview’Darwinmusthavemeantonlytheideasoftransmutationandcommondescent.Darwin’sdiscussioninthischapterisparticularlyrevealingbe-causeitshowsthat,inmanydiscussions,naturalselectionisnotanessentialpartofhisview.Thatis,itwasnotdoingtheexplana-toryworkinhisreasoning.Heacknowledgedthepossibilityofothercauses(suchasuseanddisuse)andheevenpresentedanexample(thelossofeyesincavefish)illustratinghowhiscentralpatternofrea-soning,toberepeatedthroughoutthethirdpartoftheOrigin,couldbeappliedwithoutappealingtonaturalselection.DarwinusuallylumpedthethreeideastogetherandcontemporaryscholarsoftenassumethattheOriginmustbereadasanargumentforallthree.PerhapsDarwinassumedthesame.Butthecavefishexampleex-plicitlyillustratesanotheroption.NaturalselectioncanbereadoutofmanyofDarwin’sargumentsaboutthesuperiorityofhis‘view’comparedtothealternativeofindependentcreation.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n134c.kennethwatersvireasoninginthesecondpartoftheorigin:defendingagainstmiscellaneouspossibleobjectionsDarwinanticipatedobjectionstohisviewandaddressedtheminfourchaptersinthemiddleportionoftheOrigin.Thefirstofthesechapters,thesixth,concernstensionsbetweenDarwin’sviewthattransmutationwasagradualprocessandtheexistenceofnumerousdiscontinuitiesinthebiologicalrealmsuchasthosebetweencon-temporaryspecies.Theseventhandeighthchaptersdealwiththedifficultiesofexplaininginstinctsandofexplainingthesterilityofinterspecieshybrids.Theninthchapterdealswithgapsinthefos-silrecord.Thereisacommonthemeamongthesechapters,sincemanyofthedifficultiesrelate,asinthesixthchapter,toapparenttensionsbetween,ontheoneside,Darwin’sideathattransmutationisagradual,continuousprocess,andontheother,theexistenceofdiscontinuitiesinnature.Nevertheless,Darwin’ssolutionsdonotfitintoauniformpattern.Threecategoriesofsolutionscanbedis-tinguished:(a)solutionsexpandingonhisbasictheoryofnaturalselection(discussedbelow);(b)solutionsinvolvingapproachesmorefullypresentedinthethirdpartoftheOrigin(theseapproachesaredescribedinthenextsection);and(c)solutionsinvolvingaccountsofprocessesthatfalloutsidethedomainofhisbasictheory.Darwin’sexplanationofthegapsinthefossilrecordprovidesanexampleofthethirdkindofsolution.Thesegapsseemedtocon-tradicthisgradualistaccountofevolution.Headdressedthisappar-entcontradictionbyarguingthatthediscontinuitiesinthefossilrecordrepresentirregularitiesinfossilisation,notdiscontinuitiesintheprocessofspeciesformation.Thatis,Darwinclaimedthattheprocessoftransmutationwascontinuous,thatallintermediateformswererepresentedbyindividualslivinginthepast,andthatthereasontheseformsdidnotallappearinthefossilrecordisbe-causemanyofthemwerenotallfossilised.Hence,hedidnotsolvetheproblemoffossilgapsbyexpandingonhisbasicideasoftransmu-tation,commondescentornaturalselection.Hesolveditbydescrib-ingaprocess(fossilisation)thatfelloutsidethedomainofhisbasictheory.Darwinoftenaddresseddifficultiesforhisviewbyexpandinguponhistheoryofnaturalselection.ManyofthedifficultiesheaddressedCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nTheargumentsintheOriginofSpecies135centredonbiologicalfeaturesthatseemedtodefyevolutionaryex-planation,especiallyexplanationinvolvingagradualprocessofnat-uralselection.WhenDarwininvokednaturalselectiontoexplainadifficultcaseofevolution,whetherthecaseinvolvedthecomplexstructureoftheeyeortheintricateinstinctivebehaviourofinsects,hisreasoningtypicallyfollowedthesamepattern:1.establishtheexistenceofinheritedvariationsofthetraitaswellassimilartraits;2.pickoutarudimentaryexampleofthetraitinsomespeciesandshowhowtherudimentaryformmighthavefirstacci-dentallyoccurred;3.explainhowanindividualwiththeoriginal,rudimentaryformofthetraitmighthavebenefitedanddescribehowthistraitcouldbeinheritedandestablishedvianaturalselection;4.arguethatoncetherudimentaryformwasestablished,addi-tionalvariationsofthattraitcouldbeselectedinagradualmannertoestablishthetraitofinterest.ThispatternofreasoningisexemplifiedmanytimesintheOrigin,butIwillillustrateitwithjustoneexample,Darwin’sexplanationofinstincts.InstinctsprovidedadifficultcaseforDarwin’stheorybecauseitisdifficulttoseehowinstinctscouldbeestablishedbyanaturalprocessoftransmutation.Darwininitiatedhisdiscussionbydistin-guishingbetweeninstinctandhabitandarguingthatvariationsininstinctivebehaviourcouldbeinheritedjustasvariationsinphysi-calattributesareinherited.Thenheidentifiedandexplainedthreecasesofinstinctivebehaviourbyfollowingtheabovepatternforeachcase.Hestartedwiththecasethatwaseasiesttoinvestigateandac-countforonhisviewandconcludedwiththemostdifficultcase.Iwillexaminehisaccountofthesecondcase,whichinvolvedtheslave-makinginstinctofvariousantspecies.Darwin’sdescriptionsoftheslave-makingbehaviourofants,basedonobservationsofPierreHuberaswellashisown,areintrinsicallyfascinatinganditiseasytooverlookthefactthatDarwin’sdiscussionfollowsapatternofreasoning(sketchedabove)thatoccursrepeatedlywhenDarwindealtwithdifficultcases.HebeganbydescribingthevariationinbehaviouramonganumberofantspeciestoestablishCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n136c.kennethwatersthatvariousbehavioursareinstinctiveandinherited(step1above).Hisevidenceincludednotjusttellingobservationsbutalsoexper-imentalresults–hisownobservationsandresultsaswellasthoseofothers.Hethendescribedtheslave-makinginstinctsoftwodif-ferentspecies,oneofwhichreliesontheworkofslavestoamuchgreaterextentthantheother.Aftersayinghewouldnotguesshowthelessdependentspecies,Formicasanguinea,mighthavedevel-opeditsslave-makinginstinct,heneverthelessdidso(steps2and3fromabove):BywhatstepstheinstinctofF.sanguineaoriginatedIwillnotpretendtoconjecture.Butasants,whicharenotslave-makers,will,asIhaveseen,carryoffpupaeofotherspecies,ifscatteredneartheirnests,itispossiblethatpupaeoriginallystoredasfoodmightbecomedeveloped;andtheantsthusunintentionallyrearedwouldthenfollowtheirproperinstincts,anddowhatworktheycould.Iftheirpresenceprovedusefultothespecieswhichhadseizedthem–ifitweremoreadvantageoustothisspeciestocaptureworkersthantoprocreatethem–thehabitofcollectingpupaeoriginallyforfoodmightbynaturalselectionbestrengthenedandrenderedpermanentfortheverydifferentpurposeofraisingslaves.(223–4)Havingmadeplausibletheideathattheslave-makinginstinctofF.sanguineamighthavebeenestablishedbymeansofnaturalselec-tion,hethensuggeststhatnaturalselectioncouldselectforaseriesofadditionalvariationsthatwouldresultintheslave-makingin-stinctofthesecondspecies,F.rufescens(step4fromabove):Whentheinstinctwasonceacquired,ifcarriedouttoamuchlessextenteventhaninourBritishF.sanguinea,which,aswehaveseen,islessaidedbyitsslavesthanthesamespeciesinSwitzerland,Icanseenodifficultyinnaturalselectionincreasingandmodifyingtheinstinct–alwayssupposingeachmodificationtobeofusetothespecies–untilanantwasformedasabjectlydependentonitsslavesasistheFormicarufescens.(224)ThepatternofreasoningoutlinedaboveandexemplifiedbyDarwin’saccountofinstinctexplicitlydrawsuponnaturalselection.Wemightwonder,however,whetherscepticalreadersthoughtthesedifficultcasescouldalsobeexplainedbyotherevolutionarymechanisms.Infact,itdoesnottakemuchimaginationtorecastDarwin’saccountoftheevolutionofslave-makinginstinctsintermsofuseanddisuseratherthannaturalselection.Clearly,DarwinthoughtofnaturalCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nTheargumentsintheOriginofSpecies137selectionastheprimaryexplanatoryprinciplefordealingwithdifficultcases,buthisargumentscanberecastdifferentlyandprobablywererecastdifferentlyinthemindsofreaderswhowerepersuadedabouttransmutationandcommondescent,butnotaboutnaturalselection.viireasoninginthethirdpartoftheorigin:investigatingandunderstandingnaturalphenomenaintermsoftransmutation,commondescentandnaturalselectionThethirdpartoftheOrigindemonstrateswhatDarwin’s‘view’couldexplain.Thispartincludesfivechapters:thefifthchapter,exam-inedabove;andthefourchaptersthatcomeattheendofthebook(excludingthefinal,summarisingchapter).Thetenthchaptercon-tinuesDarwin’sdiscussionoffossils,theeleventhandtwelfthdealwithgeographicalvariation,andthethirteenthdealswithsystemat-ics,morphologyandembryology.Theargumentationinthesechap-tersisextraordinarilypowerful.InsofarastheOriginprovideslogi-callycompellingreasonsforacceptingevolution,thesechaptersplaythecrucialrole.Aswillbecomeapparentfromthefollowingaccount,naturalselectiondidnotplayadominantroleinthesechapters–eveninthefirstedition.21WhereasDarwin’sninthchapteraddressestheobjectionthathisviewwasincompatiblewithdiscontinuitiesinthefossilrecord,thetenthchaptershowshowwellhisviewcanexplainvariousgeneral-isationsaboutthefossilrecord.22Thegeneralisationswerediverse:thatspeciesappearoneatatime,notsuddenlyinlargebatches;thatsomespecieslastmuchlongerthanmostdo;thatonceextinct,speciesneverreturn;thatthelaterspeciesinagroupareoftenmorespecialisedinstructureandfunctionthanearlierspecies;andsoon.Theexplanationswerefairlyuniform.Darwinexplainednearlyallofthegeneralisationsbyinvokingtransmutationandcommondescent,notnecessarilynaturalselection.Heexplained,forin-stance,thatonceaspecieswentextinctitdidnotreappearbecausethegenerationalconnectionwasbroken.Clearlythisexplanationdoesnotdependonnaturalselection.Andneitherdidmanyoftheothers.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n138c.kennethwatersDarwin’seleventhandtwelfthchaptersprovideamanualforin-vestigatingthegeographicaldistributionoforganisms.Darwinbeganthefirstofthesechaptersbyidentifyingthreecuriousfacts:(a)thesimilaritiesanddifferencesoforganismsinvariousregions–forexample,intheNewWorldcomparedtotheOldWorld–cannotbeaccountedforbydifferencesinclimateorphysicalconditions;(b)thevariousregionsamongwhichorganismsdifferareseparatedbybarrierstomigration(suchasoceansandmountainranges);and(c)organismswithinthesameregion–onthesamecontinentorinthesamesea,say–exhibitanaffinitytooneanother.Heaccountedforthesefactsintermsofa‘veracausaofordinarygenerationwithsubsequentmigration’andclaimedthatanyonewhorejectedtheviewthateachspecieswasfirstproducedwithinasingleregion‘callsintheagencyofamiracle’(352).Thebasicideaissimple.Newspeciesarisefromancestralonesandhencetheirformswillresemblethoseoftheirancestralspeciesaswellasthoseoftheirsisterandcousinspeciesthathavealsodescendedfromthesameancestor.Geographicbarriersthatpreventtheunlimiteddispersionoftheancestralspecieswillalsopreventunlimiteddispersionofitsdescendentspecies,andhencesimilarspecieswilltendtobelocatedinthesameregions.Darwindevelopedavarietyofideasthroughoutthesechapterstoaccountfornumerousnuancesingeographicaldistributions.Theseaccountsdependedondetailsofgeographyanddispersion,notonthemechanismofspeciesformation.Inthethirteenthchapter,Darwindealtwiththreeareas:system-aticsorclassification,morphologyandembryology.Withregardtosystematics,heshowedhowhisviewcouldexplainthe‘grandfact’ofnaturalhistory,namely‘thesubordinationofgroupundergroup’(413).Again,thebasicexplanationwassimple:thesubordinationofgroupsrepresentspatternsofdescent.Justassiblingsresembleoneanothermorethancousins,specieswithamorerecentcommonancestorresembleoneanothermorethanspeciesmoredistantlyre-lated.DarwinacknowledgedthatmostnaturalistsbelievedthatthesubordinationofgroupsrepresentedtheCreator’splan,buthein-sistedthatthisbeliefaddsnothingtoourknowledgeunlesswecanspecifywhatismeantbytheplanoftheCreator.Darwinremarkedthatthissubordinationofgroupswassofamil-iarthatmanyassumedthatitisnotinneedofexplanation.ButheidentifiedfeaturesofthesubordinationthatindeedcalledoutforCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nTheargumentsintheOriginofSpecies139explanation.Oneofthesewasalreadywellrecognisedbynatural-istsofDarwin’sday:characteristicsthatestablishtheplacesthatorganismsoccupyintheeconomyofnaturearenearlyuselessforpurposesofclassification.Onemightwellexpect,Darwinreasoned,thatgroupingorganismsbytheirspecialadaptiveorganswouldpro-videthemostnaturalclassificationscheme.Iftheseorgansareunimportantforclassificatorypurposes,whatorgansareimportant?Darwinansweredthatitisthoseorgansthathave‘greatercon-stancy’throughoutlargegroupsofspecies.UnderDarwin’sviewthesearetheorgansthathavebeenlesssubjectedtoadaptivechangethroughtheprocessoftransmutation.Darwinthenshowedthathisviewcouldexplainintricatepracticesforclassifyingorganisms.Heconcludedthat‘communityofdescentisthehiddenbondwhichnaturalistshavebeenunconsciouslyseeking’(420).Darwin’sdiscussionofclassificationledhimtomorphology,thestudyofplantandanimalforms.Ashisdiscussionofclassificationmadeclear,organismsthataregroupedtogetherresembleonean-other,notintheirhabitsoflife,butintheirgeneralorganisationortheirunityoftype.‘Whatcanbemorecurious’,Darwinasked,‘thanthatthehandofaman,formedforgrasping,thatofamolefordig-ging,thelegofthehorse,thepaddleoftheporpoise,andthewingofthebat,shouldallbeconstructedonthesamepattern,andshouldincludethesamebones,inthesamerelativepositions?’(434).Hearguedthattheunityoftypecannotbeexplainedintermsofutilityorthedoctrineoffinalcauses.AllthatcouldbesaidontheordinaryviewofindependentcreationisthatitpleasedtheCreatortocreateclassesofplantsandanimalswithdistinctiveunitiesoftype.Darwinarguedthathisanswerprovidedrealknowledge:thecuriousunityofthehumanhand,thebat’swingandtheporpoise’spaddlewasduetocommondescent.Darwinthoughtthisexplanationwassonaturalthatmorphologistscouldnothelpbutuselanguagesugges-tiveoftransmutationandcommondescent,speaking,forexample,of‘metamorphosed’vertebrae,limbsandleaves.‘Naturalists,how-ever,usesuchlanguageonlyinametaphoricalsense....Onmyviewthesetermsmaybeusedliterally’(438–9).Darwinraisedahostofquestionsconcerningembryology,thestudyofthedevelopmentofindividualorganisms.Perhapsthemostbasicquestionconcernedthefactthatembryosofspeciestendtoresembleoneanothermuchmorecloselythanadults.HebeganhisCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n140c.kennethwatersaccountbyclaimingageneralprinciple:‘atwhateverageanyvaria-tionfirstappearsintheparent,ittendstoreappearatacorrespondingageintheoffspring’(444).Heclaimedthatthisistrueevenincaseswherethevariationmighthaveappearedearlierorlaterinlife.Hethenappliedthisprinciple,togetherwithhistheoryofartificialse-lection,toexplainwhytheembryosofparticulardomesticatedraces(selectedfromthesameoriginalspecies)resembleoneanothermorecloselythantheadultformsofthosedomesticatedraces.Breederstypicallyselecttheirdogs,horsesandpigeonswhentheyarenearlygrownupandhenceoftenselectvariationsthatdonotappearuntillateindevelopment.Hencethedifferentiationamongbreedswillbemorepronouncedatstagesofdevelopmentinwhichtheselec-tionsaremade.Afterintroducingthismodeofexplanationinthecontextofartificialselection,heextendedittocasesinnature.Darwin’sexplanationsinthesectiononembryologyexplicitlyin-vokedtheprocessofselection(notjusttheterm).ThisdiffersfromthesectionsonclassificationandmorphologywhereDarwin’sexpla-nationexplicitlyinvokedtheprocessesofadaptivetransmutationandcommondescent,butnotaparticularmechanismofadaptivetransmutation.Darwincompletedthischapterbydiscussingrudimentaryorat-rophiedorgans.Hecommentedthatrudimentaryorgansweresome-timessaidtohavebeencreated‘“forthesakeofsymmetry”’,orinorderto‘“completetheschemeofnature”’(453).Darwininsistedthatsuchaccountsexplainnothing.‘Woulditbethoughtsufficient’,heasked,‘tosaythatbecauseplanetsrevolveinellipticcoursesroundthesun,satellitesfollowthesamecourseroundtheplanets,forthesakeofsymmetry,andtocompletetheschemeofnature?’(453).Hethenexplainedthatinthecourseoftransmutation,changesinthehabitsoflifewillsometimesrenderanorganuselessandthatthroughdisusetheorganwillbecomerudimentary(asinthecaseofeyesincavefish).Darwinsummarisedthischapterbystatingthattheseveralclassesoffactsconsideredclearlyindicatedthattheinnumerablespecies,generaandfamiliesoforganismsonearthhavealldescended,eachwithinitsownclassorgroup,fromcommonparents,andhaveallbeenmodifiedinthecourseofdescent’.Hedidnotmentionselectionhere,whichisonlyappropriategiventhathisexplanationsinthischapterrarelydrawuponselection.Heconcluded:‘IshouldwithoutCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nTheargumentsintheOriginofSpecies141hesitationadoptthisview,evenifitwereunsupportedbyotherfactsorarguments’(458).Certainlyitwouldbeopentoreaders,evenifDarwinhadotherintentions,topluginfor‘thisview’transmuta-tionandcommondescent,leavingasidethelargelynon-essentialhypothesisofnaturalselection.viiiconclusionTheOriginofSpeciesoffersaflexiblebodyofargumentation.DarwinapparentlyviewedthisargumentationasaHerscheliandemonstra-tionoftransmutationandcommondescentbymeansofnaturalselection.Readthisway,naturalselectionisaveracausa.Underthisinterpretation,Darwin’sanalogicalargumenttakescentrestage,asHerschelsaidanalogicalargumentsshould,toestablishtheadequacyofnaturalselectionindependentlyoftheevidencethatnaturalselec-tionwasindeedresponsibleforvariousphenomena.ButDarwin’sanalogicalargumentwasspeculative.Itincludedaleapofreasoning:thatthemagnitudeofdifferencebetweentheconditionsofartificialselectionandthoseofnaturalselectionwouldleadtothemagnitudeofdifferencebetweenartificiallyselecteddomesticracesontheonehandandnaturalspeciesontheother.ThecriticswhoDarwintookmostseriouslyseizeduponthisweakness.Theircriticismsseemtohaveassumedthatiftheargumentfromartificialselectionwasde-feated,Darwin’swholeargumentwouldcollapse.ButmanyofDar-win’ssympathiserstookadifferentview.TheyacceptedDarwin’sideasoftransmutationandcommondescentwithoutcommittingthemselvestonaturalselection.Thisremainedacommonattitudewellintothetwentiethcentury.23ThischaptershowshowtheOrigincouldsupportsuchaconclusion.Bytakingtransmutationandcommondescenttobethecauseofthevariousgroupsofphe-nomenathatDarwindealtwithinthethirdpartoftheOrigin(andinvarioussectionsofthesecondpart),theycouldviewthestructureoftheOriginasaWhewellianconsilienceofinductions.notes1.Allpagereferencesinthischapteraretothe1859editionoftheOrigin,reprintedasaHarvardUniversityPressfacsimile(1964).CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n142c.kennethwaters2.The1844editionofVestigeshasbeenreprintedasaUniversityofChicagoPressfacsimile(1994).OnVestigesasanarrativework,seeSecord2000,ch.3.3.ForananalysisemphasisingnarrationalaspectsoftheOrigin,seeBeer1983,esp.ch.3.4.OnthescientificreceptionoftheOrigin,seeGayon,thisvolume.5.S.F.Cannon1978.6.The1842Sketchandthe1844Essaywerepublishedposthumously.SeeDarwinandWallace1958.7.ForfurtherdiscussionofDarwinandWallace,seeRadick,thisvolume.8.C.Darwin1975;DarwinandWallace1859,reprintedinDarwinandWallace1958.9.Hodge1977.10.OnthepublicationandsubsequentrevisionsoftheOrigin,seeC.Darwin1959,esp.11–25.11.See,e.g.,Ruse1979.12.Hodge1977,1989,1992b.ForfurtherdiscussionofDarwinandtheveracausaideal,seeSloan,Hodge,RadickandHull,thisvolume.13.Philosophersanalysingthelogicandstructure(ortheformandstrat-egy)oftheOriginhaveadoptedtwodifferentapproaches.SomehaveappealedtocontemporaryidealsofsciencetoelucidatethedeeplogicofDarwin’sargumentation(Lloyd1983,PhilipKitcher1993a,Thagard1978,Waters1986).OthersstresstheidealsofDarwin’sdaytoclarifyhisreasoningandexplainthestructureoftheOrigin(Hodge1992b,Recker1987,Ruse1979).Inthischapter,Iwilltakethelatterapproach.Nev-ertheless,readersmaywishtodrawconnectionsbetweenmyaccounthereandcontemporaryphilosophicaltheoriesofscientificjustification.14.OnWhewellandconsilience,seeHull,thisvolume.15.ForasamplingofcriticalresponsestoDarwin,seeHull1973.16.Foracomplementarydiscussionofthesechapters,seetheIntroductiontothisvolume.17.Waters1986.18.Forfurtherdiscussionoftheartificialselection–naturalselectionanal-ogy,seeL.T.Evans1984,R.A.Richards1997andSterrett2002.19.Thatis,hewastacitlyconsideringa‘virtualanalogue’.Inthe1842Sketch,Darwinexplicitlyimaginedsuchavirtualanalogue.Suppose,Darwinconjectured,that‘abeinginfinitelymoresagaciousthanman(notanomniscientcreator)duringthousandsandthousandsofyearsweretoselectallthevariationswhichtendedtowardscertainends....Who,seeinghowplantsvaryin[a]garden,whatblindfoolishmanhasdoneinafewyears,willdeny[what]anall-seeingbeinginthousandsofyearscouldeffect.’DarwinandWallace1958,45.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nTheargumentsintheOriginofSpecies14320.Darwinseemstocontradictthispointonp.148,whenhesuggeststhatthenutrientswastedinthedevelopmentofuselessstructureswouldprovideadisadvantage.21.IthasoftenbeennotedthatnaturalselectionbecomeslessprominentinthesuccessiveeditionsoftheOrigin.22.JonathanHodgeclarifiedthispointforme.23.Forfurtherdiscussion,seeGayon,thisvolume.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\ngregoryradick6Isthetheoryofnaturalselectionindependentofitshistory?itheculturalconditioningofdarwin’stheoryMachines,competition,empireandprogressfascinatedtheVictori-ans.Oneofthemostfamousscientifictheoriesoftheera,CharlesDarwin’stheoryofnaturalselection,tellsofmachine-likeorganismsthatcompete,coloniseandimprove.Tonoticeresemblancessuchasthese,betweenthecontextofDarwin’stheoryanditscontent,isnothingnew.In1862,KarlMarx,inalettertohiscollabora-torFriedrichEngels,wrote:‘ItisremarkablehowDarwinrecog-nisesamongbeastsandplantshisEnglishsocietywithitsdivisionoflabour,competition,openingupofnewmarkets,“inventions”,andtheMalthusian“struggleforexistence”.ItisHobbes’“bellumomniumcontraomnes”[“thewarofallagainstall”].’1Inourownday,debatesovertheculturalconditioningofscientificknowl-edgehavemadethisoldinsightnewlyproblematic.2Thischapterattemptstoclarifythesenewproblems.Drawingonrecentthinkingaboutcultureandscience,itlooksathowDarwin’ssocial,mate-rialandintellectualcultureconditionedtheformandcontentofhistheoryofnaturalselection.Oneviewmaybedispensedwithatthestart:thatDarwindevel-opedthetheoryofnaturalselectionbecausehewasagenius,and,sincegeniusesdonotbelongtomundanehistorylikemostpeople,itispointlesstoaskabouttheculturalconditioningofhistheory.Thereisgeneralconsensusamonghistoriansofsciencethattalkof‘genius’doesnotsomuchexplainscientificinnovationasredescribeit.3InDarwin’scase,moreover,twogenerationsofscholarshiphaverevealedhowmuchthehistoryofthedevelopmentofhistheoryis147CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n148gregoryradickasocialhistory.Thepressingissuenowismoresubtle.Wemustaskwhether,infundamentalways,thetheoryofnaturalselectionisneverthelessindependentofthesocialhistorythatbroughtitintobeing.Wecancharacterisetwocontrarytheses.Anindependencethesisaboutthetheoryisthemoretraditionalandintuitiveofthepair.Onthisthesis,theresemblancebetweenculturalcontextandtheoreticalcontentthrowslightonwhyaVictorianfirstdevelopedthetheory.FeaturespeculiartoVictoriancultureprimedDarwintorecogniseatimelesstruthaboutnature.Butthedevelopmentofthetheorywasinevitable–theprimingjustacceleratedtheprocess.4Therewasonlysomuchthatcouldbelearnedaboutplantsandanimalsbeforeaconclusioninfavourofnaturalselectionbecameinescapable.Otherindividuals,belongingtodifferentsocietieswithdifferenthistories,wouldhavedevelopedthetheorysoonerorlater.Sincelotsofdifferentsocialhistorieswouldhaveyieldedthetheory,itisindependentofanyparticularhistory,includingthehistorythathappenedtoyieldit.Ontheothersideisaninseparabilitythesis.Itisadeliberatelyprovocativenewcomer.Onthisthesis,theclosematchbetweencontextandcontentshowsthatthetheoryofnaturalselectionwasnotatallinevitable,butacontingentresultofauniquesocialhistory.Thetheory’sexistencedependscruciallyonfeaturesoftheVictoriancontextunlikelytohavebeenreplicatedelsewhere.SincethetheorywouldneverhaveexistedapartfromthetrendsandeventsthatinfactledDarwintodevelopit,thetheoryisnotindependent,butinseparablefromitshistory.Furthermore,ifDarwin,orsomeonemuchlikehim,withsimilarrelationstoasimilarculturalcontext,hadnotdevelopedthetheoryofnaturalselection,thebiologicalscienceswouldnowbedifferent,butnolesssuccessful.AfterfirstsketchingthesocialhistoryofDarwin’stheory,Ishallexaminesomeargumentsforandagainstitsindependencefromitshistoricalmatrix.Atbottom,toaskabouttheindependenceofthetheoryistoaskwhethertheassumptionsanddecisionsthatpro-duceditwerebothnecessaryandsuchthatnooneoutsideDarwin’smatrixwouldlikelyhavemadethem.Thethirdsectionbelowex-ploresthispointaboutassumptionsanddecisionsinquiteagen-eralway.ThefourthsectionlooksatoneofDarwin’sassumptionsinparticular–hisassumptionthattheconcept‘adaptation’,asheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIndependence,historyandnaturalselection149understoodit,deservedtobeatthecentreoftheorisingabouttheoriginofspecies.ThefifthsectionthenlooksatoneofDarwin’sde-cisionsinparticular–hisdecisiontoconcentrateondevelopingtheMalthusiantheoryofnaturalselectiononcethattheoryhademergedinhisnotebooks.IarguethatthestabilityofMalthusianstruggleinDarwin’stheorisingisbetteraccountedforontheinseparabilitythe-sis.Inplaceofthestandard,Marxianversionofthatthesis,however,thesixthsectionoffersanalternativeversion,emphasisingDarwin’sviewsonmethod.5ThechapterconcludeswithsomereflectionsonhowdebateovertheindependenceofDarwin’stheoryfromitshis-toryrelatestorecentcontroversiesinthatmostDarwinianscience,evolutionarybiology.iivictorianpower,darwinianknowledgeWasDarwinagenius?Notinhisownestimation.6Hisnotebooksindeedshowscantsignofthoseflashesofinsightwhich,sincetheRomanticera,havebeenassociatedwiththescientificgenius.7Buthoweverhighone’sregardforDarwin’sintellectualpowers,thosepowersdidnotenablehimtotranscendhisoutwardcircumstances.Hedidnotdevelopthetheoryofnaturalselectionbycommuningwiththetruthaboutnature,isolatedfromthebustlingworldaroundhim.Ateverysteptowardsthematuretheory,worldlypowerenabledcognitiveadvance.8Threestepsinparticularcanstandforthewhole,complexsequence.First,therewasDarwin’scomingtobelieve,withinhalfayearofhisreturnfromtheBeaglevoyage,thatnewspeciesarosethroughnaturalcausesactingonpre-existingspecies:thetransmu-tationthesis.IfDarwinhadneverpersuadedhimselfthattransmu-tationwastrue,itishardtoseewhyhewouldeverhavebotheredwiththeorisingaboutitscausesatall,muchlesswithdevelopingthetheorythatnaturalselectionwasitsprincipalcause.DarwinseemstohavecommittedhimselftotransmutationisminthecourseofreflectionsonsomesurprisingnewsabouthisBeaglecollections.IntheSpringof1837,theLondon-basedDarwinlearned,amongotherthings,thatmanyofhisGalapagosspecimensbelongedtospeciesfoundonlyontheGalapagosarchipelago.Moreover,thosespeciesoftenbelongedtogenerapeculiarnottootherrockyoceanicislandsaroundtheworld,buttotheSouthAmericanmainland,wheretheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n150gregoryradicklushtropicalconditionscouldhardlyhavebeenmoredifferentfromtheconditionsontheGalapagos.ForDarwin,thebestexplanationforthistaxonomicandbiogeographicpuzzlewasthattheGalapagosspecieshadarisenthroughtransmutationfrommainlandspeciesan-cestraltotheonescurrentlyinhabitingthemainland.9Darwinhadthiscrucialpuzzletoponder,then,becausehehadtravelledontheBeagle,hadcollectedcertainbirdsfromtheGalapagos,andthosebirdshadbeenclassifiedinacertainway.EachelementinthispackagehasitsplaceinauniquelyVictorianorder.TheBeaglevoyagewasnot,afterall,aquesttodiscovertheoriginofspecies.TheideaforthevoyagewasCaptainFitzRoy’s.Hehadre-turnedfromaprevioustriptoSouthAmericawithfourFuegians,andnowwantedtotakethethreesurvivorsback,toserveasChristianparagonsamongthesavages.TheAdmiraltyfundedthenewvoyageforitsownpurposes,becausebettermapsoftheSouthAmericancoastlinewouldbenefittradeandsoincreasenationaltreasure.Darwinwasnomapmaker,andtheshipalreadyhadanaturalist;butDarwinwasrefinedandrich–enoughtopayhisownway–andthereforeasuitablediningcompanionforthearistocraticcaptain.10Onceaboard,Darwinhiredacrewmember,SymsCovington,toactasapersonalservantincollectingplants,animalsandfossils.11BackinEngland,Darwineagerlyhandedoverhiscollectionstomuseum-basedexpertsintaxonomy.Suchdeferenceonthepartofvoyagingcollectorshadmadethemuseumcollectionsvast;andthisvastnessinturnunderwrotetheauthorityofexpertclassifications.12Theoreticalcontentandwidercontextlikewiseintertwineatasecondstep:Darwin’sturningtothedomesticationofanimalsandplantsforinsightsintotransmutation.Darwinbeganmakingincur-sionsintothebreedingliteraturesoonafteropeninghisnotebooksonthetransmutationproblem.Later,asanestablishedgentlemanofscience,hewentalongtothebreeders’meetings.TheenterpriseofplantandanimalbreedingwasasfaradvancedinDarwin’sBritainasanywhereelseintheworld.Wellorganisedandintenselycom-petitive,breederskepttabsontheirartandeachotherthroughperiodicals,clubs,societies,exhibitionsandprizecompetitions.Darwin’swealthenabledhimtoinquireabouttradesecretswithoutposingathreattoprofits.ThebreedersmayevenhaveseeninDarwin’sinterestameansofelevatingtheculturalstandingofbreeding.13Famously,ananalogywithstockbreedingwouldbecomeCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIndependence,historyandnaturalselection151thecentrepieceofDarwin’spublicpresentationofthetheoryofnat-uralselectionintheOriginofSpecies(1859).AthirdandfinalsteptoconsiderisDarwin’sso-called‘Malthu-sianmoment’.Darwindevelopedthetheoryofnaturalselectionoverseveralmonthsbeginningintheautumnof1838,afterread-inginthepoliticaleconomistThomasRobertMalthus’EssayonthePrincipleofPopulation.MalthushadwritteninparttodampenutopianhopesarousedinthewakeoftheFrenchRevolution.Hehadclaimedtoshowthat,otherthingsbeingequal,humanpop-ulationsoutgrowavailablesubsistence,bringinghunger,warandothermiseries.14ExtrapolatingfromMalthus,Darwincametobe-lievethatpopulationpressuresinnatureweresointensethatallplantsandanimalswerelockedinastruggleforexistence.Giveninheritablevariationamongthosestrugglingplantsandanimals,overtimethereemerged,slowlybutsurely,newandbetteradaptedspecies.LaterDarwinwouldrecallpickingupMalthus’Essay‘foramuse-ment’,asthough,onadullafternoon,hehadreachedforwhateverwasneartohand.15Maybeso.ButMalthuswasonalotofmindsatthetime.TheWhigparty,politicalhomefortheDarwins,theLyellsandothergentlemanlyfamilies,hadrecentlycometopower,andinthenameofMalthuswasintroducingharshermeasuresfortheprovisioningofthepoor.Darwinhadlongbeenfamiliarwithargumentsinfavourofthesechanges.WhilehewasontheBeagle,hissisterssenthimpamphletsfullofpro-reformpropaganda.Theirauthor,HarrietMartineau,soonbecameanacquaintance.Malthu-siandoctrinewasthestuffofdinnerconversationatLondonparties–andDarwinwasthere.WhenDarwinatlastreadMalthusforhimself,theLondonpaperswerefullofnewsofriots,marches,workhouseburningsandotherprotestsagainstlawsacknowledgedonallsidesasMalthusianinspirit.16SoDarwin’stheoryofnaturalselectionwasnogiftofsheer,sublime,solitarygenius,butinseveralkeyrespectsaproductofVictorianculture.Thisconclusionisnotobvious.Wehavecontex-tualisthistoriansofsciencetothankforit.Theirlabourshavenotsomuchendedthedebateovercontextandcontent,however,asraiseditslevel.Awareasneverbeforeofthetheory’stiestoitshistoricalmatrix,wecannowposethedifficultissueoftheindependenceorinseparabilityofthetheoryfromthatmatrix.17CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n152gregoryradickiiidarwin’sassumptionsanddecisionsTobringthisissueintosharperfocus,ithelpstoexamineDarwin’sassumptionsanddecisions:assumptionsaboutnatureandknowl-edge,anddecisionsabout,amongotherthings,howtoresolvecon-flictsbetweentheoriesheldandobservationsmade.Ontheinsepa-rabilitythesis,therewasnothinginevitableaboutmakingjusttheassumptionsDarwinmade,orresolvingconflictsinjustthewayshedid.ButtheassumptionsmadeandtheresolutionsdecideduponledDarwintoworkouthistheoryofnaturalselection.Thistheoryinturnsetthebiologicalsciencesincertaindirectionsratherthanotherones.WhatassumptionsstructuredDarwin’sinvestigations?Onewasthatatruetheoryofspeciesoriginswouldexplainadaptations.18An-otherwasthatatruetheorywouldconformtotheoldveracausaideal,referringonlytopresentlyactingandindependentlyattestedcauses.19Neitheroftheseassumptionswasobviouslyreasonabletoallthoseconcernedwithbeingscientificaboutthehistoryanddi-versityoflife.Considertheassumptionaboutadmissiblecauses.InGermany,followingGoetheandothers,themorphologistsdealtinarchetypalpatterns.InFrance,Cuvierhadurgedthatcausesnowdiminishedinpowerconditionedthesuccessionofanimaltypesrecordedintherockstrata.EveninEngland,wheretheveracausaidealwasassociatedwiththeillustriousIsaacNewton,strictadher-encewasunusual,notleastamonggeologists.YetDarwinmadetheidealhisown,inimitationofhisgeologicalmentorCharlesLyell.Weneed,then,toaskwhethersomethingspecifictoLyell’smicro-contextexplainshisveracausaenthusiasms.ThesixthsectionofthischaptermakesthecasefortheWhigreformdrive,inthesci-encesandoutsidethem,asthekey.20Underlyingassumptionsbindatheorytoitscontext.Sodores-olutionsofconflictsbetweentheoryandworld.Darwin’sreadingofMalthuseasedsuchaconflict,andindoingsodirectedDar-win’stheorisingtowardsnaturalselection.Theconflictconcernedthecausesofspeciesextinction.AccordingtoLyell,thestruggleforexistence,drivenbypopulationpressures,wastheveracausaofspeciesextinction–thatis,speciesbecomeextinctwhenadelicatecompetitivebalanceisupsetbyenvironmentalcausessuchaschangesinclimate.Throughout1837and1838,DarwinwasstillCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIndependence,historyandnaturalselection153questioningthistheoryashardtoreconcilewiththosecases,famil-iarfromhisobservationsinSouthAmerica,ofthebigmammalsofyesteryearbecomingextinctapparentlywithoutanysuchchanges.TheredidnotseemtobeevidenceforLyell’senvironmentalistexpla-nation.AfterreadingMalthus,however,Darwinchangedhismind.Withanewlyvividappreciationforhowintensethestruggleforex-istencewas,hewasabletoexcuseLyell’stheoryitsevidentialprob-lems,onthegroundsthatenvironmentalchangesfartoosmalltoleaveevidentialtracesmightneverthelesscausesomespeciestodriveotherstoextinction.Darwinwentontodevelopthetheoryofnaturalselection–atheorycomplementingthisaccountofextinction–byfocusingonwhathappenednottothelosing,extinctspecies,buttothewinning,survivingspecies;inparticular,tothoseindividualsinthewinningspecieswhosevariationsmadethemespeciallystrongcompetitors.21ButsupposeDarwinhadnotbeenimmersedinMalthusianconver-sationsinLondon,andhadneverhappeneduponMalthus’Essay.Hemighthaveresolvedtheconflictoverextinctionintheoppositeway,concludingthat,inthelightofthegeologicalevidence,populationpressuredidnotmakespeciesliabletoextinction.Hemightthenhavecontinuedworkingonhisearliertheoryofadaptivespeciesfor-mations.InDarwin’sviewatthattime,thisnon-Malthusiantheory,whileevidentiallyproblematic,didconformtotheveracausaideal.Perhapshewouldeventuallyhavepublishedthattheory.Orperhapshewouldhavejudgedtheproblemstobesoseverethathewouldhavegivenuponit,andabandonedtheorisingaboutspeciesoriginsaltogether.Letusgrantforthemomentthatno-onebutDarwin,inhiscon-text,wouldhavemadejustthoseassumptionsaboutspeciesorigins,ordecided,onMalthusiangrounds,toresolvetheconflictbetweenLyelliantheoreticalstruggleandearthlyevidenceinfavouroftheformer.Whatarethesignsthat,withoutthoseassumptionsandthatdecision,thetheoryofnaturalselectionwouldneverhavebeende-veloped?Theneedtoshowaone-to-onerelationshipbetweenaspectsofthetheoryofnaturalselectionandthehistoryofDarwin’sde-velopmentofitisthemostformidablechallengeconfrontingtheinseparabilitythesis.NottheleastpartofthatchallengeistoexplainawaythecaseofAlfredRusselWallace.WallacedidnotshareDarwin’sprivilegedCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n154gregoryradickbackgroundorsteephimselfinadaptationistnaturaltheologyatCambridge.YetWallaceformulatedatheoryofspeciesoriginscloseenoughtoDarwin’sownthatDarwinfearedhehadbeenscooped.22Thisfamousexampleofsimultaneousdiscoveryinnaturalscienceappearstolendstrongsupporttotheindependencethesis.Darwinfoundhiswaytonaturalselectionbyoneroute,andWallacebyadif-ferentroute.Thelessonseemstobe:ifyouthinkhardaboutspeciesorigins,thenitdoesnotmatterhowyoutravel,youwillreachthetheoryofnaturalselectionintheend.Oncloserinspection,however,theWallacecaseoffersatleastafewopeningstothosescepticalabouttheindependenceofthetheoryfromitshistory.OnemovewouldbetodenythatWallacedid,infact,‘co-discover’thetheoryofnaturalselection.Rather,hecameupwithatheoryquitedifferentfromDarwin’s,andDarwin’soverreactionin1858hasmisledhistorianseversince.23Allowingin-steadthat,asDarwinthought,thetheoriesareindeedbasicallythesame,onemightconcludethat,foralltheirdifferences,DarwinandWallaceweresimilar-enoughproductsofVictorianculture.Wallace,afterall,wasnotmerelyastudentofbiogeography,but,likeDarwin,committedtoLyell’sdistinctiveviewthatthehistoryofchangesonthesurfaceoftheearthheldcluestoanimalandplantdistribution.Indeed,likeDarwin,WallacearrivedatabranchingevolutionarytreefromdissatisfactionwithLyell’saccountofthetimingandplacingofspeciesoriginsasdeterminedsolelybytheprincipleofadaptationtoconditions.24Thereareothercommoninheritances.Notlongafterdiscov-eringageographicboundarybetweenhumanracesintheMalayArchipelago,WallacerecalledhisownreadingofMalthus,andarticulatedanewMalthusianexplanationforadaptiveevolution-arychange.Wallacehadwithhimthe1845editionofDarwin’sJournalofResearches,andmayhavebeenrespondingtoaMalthu-sianpassageonspeciesextinctionsinthatbook.OrperhapsachainofassociationinWallace’sfeveredmind–hewasillatthetime–ledhisthoughtsfromtheracialboundaryhehadjustdiscoveredtotheboundarieshedrewwhileworkingasalandsurveyorinEnglandandWalesintheearly1840s.Itwasaroundthattime,amidgen-eraldiscontentoverthePoorLawreformsandrisingEnglish–Welshtensions,thatWallacehadfirstreadMalthus.25SotheWallacecase,awkwardthoughitis,maynotbefataltotheinseparabilitythesis.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIndependence,historyandnaturalselection155ivthedarwinianconceptofadaptationSomeofDarwin’sassumptionsconcernedconcepts,classifications,categories–or,inthephilosopher’sterm,kinds.Onekind,‘species,’figuresinthetitleofthebookthatintroducedthetheoryofnaturalselection,OntheOriginofSpecies.Somesaythetitlewasfalsead-vertising,asDarwindeniedthatindividualplantsandanimalscomesortedintospecies.Inhisscepticalview,itwasnaturalists,notna-ture,thatdividedspeciesfromoneanother.26Bycontrast,hetookforgrantedthattheindividualtraitsofplantsandanimalscomesortednaturally,intotraitsthatareadaptationsandtraitsthatarenot.ForDarwin,inotherwords,adaptationsformedanaturalkind.27Moreover,theyrepresentedoneofthechiefexplanatorychallengesbeforethetransmutationthesis.InhisintroductiontotheOrigin,Darwinwrotethat,howeverimpressivethegeneralgroundsforfavouringtransmutation,atransmutationtheorywouldbe‘unsat-isfactory’unlessitcouldexplain‘thatperfectionofstructureandcoadaptationwhichmostjustlyexcitesouradmiration’.28Laterinthebook,headdressedthechallengeofanespeciallycomplexadaptivestructure:theeye.‘Itisscarcelypossibletoavoidcom-paringtheeyetoatelescope’,hewrote.Justashumanshaveper-fectedthetelescopegradually,so,Darwinargued,naturalselectionhadgraduallyperfected–buttoamuchhigherdegree–‘alivingopticalinstrument’.29ThemechanicalconceptofadaptationexemplifiedinDarwin’saccountoftheeyehasahistory.30Theideathatdifferenttraitssuitdifferentplantsandanimals–thatfinssuitfishtoswimming,say,andwingssuitbirdstoflying–goesbackatleasttotheancientworld.Aristotlewroteofthepurposesfulfilledbythepartsofanimals.Farfromancientoruniversal,however,istheideathattraitssuitingtheirvariousbearersundertheirdiverseconditionsoflifeshouldbegroupedtogether,privilegedastheoutstandingfactsaboutorganismsandconceivedasmechanicalcontrivances.Thatideaistheproductofoneculture:early-modernBritain.TounderstandwhyDarwingaveprideofplacetoamechanicalconceptionofadaptivetraits,weneedtorecallaBritishtraditionofnaturalhistoryandnaturaltheology,itsthemesanditssetting.31Inthelateseventeenthcentury,twomembersoftheRoyalSoci-etypublishedinfluentialworksofnaturaltheology.RobertBoyle’sCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n156gregoryradickADisquisitionabouttheFinalCausesofNaturalThings(1688)andJohnRay’sTheWisdomofGodManifestedintheWorksoftheCre-ation(1691)arguedthattheabundantevidenceofdesigninnature,andespeciallyinanimatenature,showedtheexistence,intelligenceandgoodnessofGod.BoyleandRaysetthemodelforsubsequentnaturalhistoricalandnaturaltheologicalwritinginBritain.FromtheMiddleAgestotheearly-modernperiod,thestudyofanimalshadbeenlargelythestudyofreveredtextsandpreservedspecimens.Nowitinvolvedactiveobservationoflivingcreaturesinthewild.Asfornaturaltheology,earlierdesignargumentshadnotdweltespe-ciallyontheadaptednessofthepartsandinstinctsoforganisms.AsBoyleexplained,however,theproposalsofDescarteshadmadetheregularlycyclingheavenlybodiesratherlessattractiveasevidencefordesignthantheyhadbeenpreviously.Traitsfulfillingsomepur-poseinthelivesoforganismsbecamethebestevidencebydefault.32Adaptationswerenowregardedasconstitutingakindintheirownright,asthefeaturesofnatureinwhichGod’ssignaturewasmostclearlylegible.Theyweredescribedasproductsofthehighestpos-sibleorderofcraftsmanship.‘IneversawanyInanimateproductionofNature’,marvelledBoyleinhisDisquisition,‘...whosecon-trivancewascomparabletothatofthemeanestLimbofthedispi-cablestAnimal:andthereisincomparablymoreArtexpress’dinthestructureofaDoggsfoot,theninthatofthefamousClockatStrasburg.’33Devoutnaturalistsintheeighteenthcenturycata-loguedtheadaptivepartsoforganisms,describingthosepartsasma-chinesengineeredwithadmirableskill.34Talkofcontrivanceandclocksremainedcentral,sustainedinpartbythesuccessofBritishworkshopsatcontrivingthemostpreciseclocksandwatchesintheworld.Alongwithsteamengines,spinningmulesandothercunningdevices,precisiontimepieceswereinstrumentsofBritishindustrialandimperialexpansion.35AgainfollowingBoyleandRay,Britishwritersonnaturaltheologyapproved.Intheirview,thenaturalworldhadbeendesignedsothatindustrioushumanswouldbenefitfromitsexploitation.ToadmirethecraftsmanshipofGodwasatthesametimetoadmirethesocialandcommercialarrangementsthatfacili-tatedsuchefficientfulfilmentofGod’swishesforhumankind.36BoyleandRaywroteattheendofaturbulentperiodinBritishhistory.Intheirbooks,theargumentfromdesignbecameameansofallyingthenewempiricalsciencetoChristianconsensusandCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIndependence,historyandnaturalselection157theprosperityitfostered.Byemphasisingthestudyofadaptivecontrivanceinlivingcreatures,theycreatedausefulroleforBritishscienceinpromotingnationalharmony.Menandwomenawaketotheprovidentialcharacteroflivingnatureandcommercialsocietywouldbelesspronetoatheismandrevolution.37BoyleandRay’smostfamoussuccessor,WilliamPaley,continuedtheseapologeticefforts,issuinghisfamousNaturalTheology(1802)atamomentofrenewedfearofrevolution–thistimeimportedfromFrance.38Inhismostfamousargument,Paleyconcludedthatorganisms,withtheirmanypartscontrivedtoserveparticularends,couldnomorecomeintobeingwithoutadesigningintelligencethancouldfunctioningwatches.39Paley’sbookwasoneofthefewtomakeanimpressiononDarwinwhenhewasastudentatAnglicanCambridge.40Notleastimpressive,itseems,wasPaley’scompari-sonoftheeyewithatelescope.41FromPaley,andfromotherau-thorswritingalongsimilarlines,Darwinlearnedtovieworganismsasassembliesofseparateadaptations,andtoviewadaptationsasre-markablecontrivances.ForDarwin,thefactsaboutadaptations,soconceived,becametheoutstandingfactsaboutorganisms,thefactsatheoryofspeciesoriginshadtoaccountforsatisfactorily.Boyle’scelebrationofthescrupulouslyattentive‘AuthorofNature’echoedinDarwin’sinsistence,crucialtohiscasefornaturalselection,thatNaturepreserveseventheslightestadvantageousvariationinstruc-tureandconstitution.42TheDarwiniankind‘adaptation’thushasahistoryrootedinthesoilofBritishscientific,religious,social,commercialandpoliticallife.43Wecanglossthishistoricityintwoways,withdifferentconse-quencesforindependenceversusinseparability.Wemightconcludethat,thankstoeventsthatbroughtBritishnaturaltheologyintobeing,andDarwinintocontactwiththistradition,Darwincametorecognisewhatadaptationstrulyare–theas-ifengineeredcon-trivancesofnaturalselection.Thatrecognitionwouldhavecomesoonerorlater,sincethekindispartofthepre-socialorderofna-ture.HowtheBritishcametorecogniseithadnoinfluenceonthekinditself.Tothatextent,thekindisindependentofitshistoricalmatrix.Orwemightconclude,onthecontrary,thathistory,notnature,madethekindwhatitis.Thetheoryofnaturalselectionassumesaviewoforganismsandtheirpartsthatispeculiartoatimeandplace.TheDarwiniankind‘adaptation’isinseparablefromCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n158gregoryradickBritainintheageofcomplexmachinesandcounter-revolutionarytheology.Otherhistoriesproduced,andcontinuetoproduce,alter-nativewaysofsortingthetraitsoforganisms,waysnomoreorlessinkeepingwithwhatweobserve.Adaptationisnotanaturalkind,butasocialconstruct.44vthemalthusianstruggleforexistenceInDarwin’sday,andtohisnineteenth-centuryRussianreadersinparticular,thestampofhiscontextwasmostvisibleinhisappealtoastruggleforexistenceidentifiedasMalthusian.45DescribingthatstruggleintheOrigin,Darwinwrote:‘ItisthedoctrineofMalthusappliedwithmanifoldforcetothewholeanimalandvegetablekingdoms.’46Hearguedthatthediversityandadaptednessofspeciesweretheconsequenceofgenerationsofstruggleamongorganismswhohadpassedatleastsomeadaptivevariationsontotheiroffspring.Thisargumentfornaturalselection,developedbetweenSeptember1838andMarch1839,emergedonlyaftermuchpreviousandwide-rangingtheorisingonthecausesofadaptivechange.Oncehehadtheargument,however,Darwin’sallegiancetoitneverseriouslyfal-tered.How,then,toexplainthisstabilisationofDarwin’stheorisingaroundadoctrineascontentiousasMalthus’populationprinciple?47WhythedecisiontostickwithMalthus?48Forsomecommentators,thenandlater,thebestexplanationisthatDarwinstuckwithMalthusinordertolegitimatehierarchi-calrelationsofpowerinVictorianBritain.Theexplanationhasrarelybeenstatedthisbaldly.Itderivesfromananalysisofideol-ogyassociatednowwithMarx.49Inadiffuseway,ofcourse,Marx’sinfluenceextendsoveralltheterritorycoveredinthischapter.SovietMarxisthistorianshelpedpioneertheanti-geniushistoriog-raphyofthesciences.50Marx’smostfamouscommentonDarwin’stheoryandhissociety,quotedabove,wasinpartacommentonthenaturalnessofthekindsthatappearinthetheory.51ItwasnotMarxbutEngelswhogavetheclassicMarxianreadingofDarwin’sMalthusianism:ThewholeDarwinistteachingofthestruggleforexistenceissimplyatransferencefromsocietytolivingnatureofHobbes’doctrineof‘bel-lumomniumcontraomnes’andofthebourgeois-economicdoctrineofCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIndependence,historyandnaturalselection159competitiontogetherwithMalthus’theoryofpopulation.Whenthiscon-juror’strickhasbeenperformed,...thesametheoriesaretransferredbackagainfromorganicnatureintohistoryanditisnowclaimedthattheirva-lidityaseternallawsofhumansocietyhasbeenproved.52IfthiswasindeedwhatDarwinwasdoing,thenhisdecisiontostickwithMalthusappearsinseparablefromitsmatrix.Makingcompeti-tivestrugglelooknaturalisanambitionthatmakeslittlesenseout-sideasocialcontextwherethereisnotonlycompetitivestrugglebutpotentiallymuchdiscontentwiththeresults.Nearerourownday,thehistorianRobertYounghassimilarlyarguedthat,justasthethe-oryofspecialcreationwas‘atheorysuitableforapastoral,agrarian,aristocraticworld’,soDarwiniannaturalselection,withMalthu-sianstruggleatitscore,wasatheory‘whichreflectsacompetitive,urban,industrialone’.ForYoung,thetransitionfromnaturalthe-ologytonaturalselectionwasbut‘thesubstitutionofoneformofrationalizationofthehierarchicalrelationsamongpeopleforanother’.53Tocometogripswiththisexplanatorytradition,twoquitedif-ferentclaimsaboutDarwin,Malthusandlegitimationneedtobedistinguished.54OneisthatDarwininhistheorisingonspeciesstuckwithMalthusforreasonshavingnothingtodowithlegitimation,butthat,instickingwithMalthus,Darwinhappenedtoproducealegitimatingtheory.TheotheristhatDarwinstuckwithMalthuspreciselybecauseaMalthusiantheorywouldbelegitimating.Youngequivocatesbetweenthesetwopossibilities.SodoYoung’shistori-ographicsuccessors,AdrianDesmondandJamesMoore,intheirbi-ographyofDarwin.Inarepresentativepassage,DesmondandMooresetthescenein1842,whenDarwin’sMalthusiantheorisingwaswelldeveloped:‘AndwithChartistsmassing,itwastimeformiddle-classMalthusianstostandupandshowthatnaturewasonthesideofthebosses.’55Doestheequivocationmatter?Itdoesifweareafteranexplana-tionofwhyDarwin’stheorisingstabilisedasitdid.SupposeDarwinjusthappenedtostickwithMalthusatatimewhenmiddle-classMalthusianswerekeentoshowthepoorandpowerlessthatalawofnaturehadordainedtheirpositioninthesocialhierarchy.Inthiscase,therewouldbenoexplanationforthestabilityofMalthusiandoctrineinDarwin’stheorisingonspecies.TherewouldsimplybeCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n160gregoryradickaremarkablecoincidencebetweenwhatwashappeninginDarwin’snotebooksandwhatwashappeningoutsidehiswindow.IdoubtthatthisishowYoungorDesmondandMoorewanttoberead.Theirsarefightingwords.Claimsaboutcoincidencedonotraisethetem-peratureofdebate.Claimsaboutexplanationdo.Supposetheirclaimisindeedtheexplanatoryone,thatDarwinstuckwithMalthusbecausehissocietyneededatheorythatlegit-imatedcompetitivesocialstrugglebynaturalisingit.56TherearehonourablereasonsforinterpretingDarwin’stheorisingalongtheselines.Almostfromtheoutset,Darwinianshaveenjoyedtremen-dousculturalauthority.TheirscienceissomuchapartoftheestablishedorderthatDarwin’sportraitnowadornstheBritishten-poundnote.Somuchauthoritylendsitselftoabuse.Direct-ingattentiontoanideologicalfunctionforthetheoryofnaturalselectionisonestrategyforcounteringuncriticaldeference.57More-over,aswehaveseen,someofthenatural-theologicalwriterswhoshapedDarwin’sconceptofadaptationdidwritewithpropagandistintent.Signsaregoodthat,ifRayorPaleyhadbeenaskedwhytheywroteaboutthedivinedesignofanimals,theywouldhavesaidsome-thingabouttheneedtoforestallrevolution.ButthereisnoserioussuggestionthatDarwin,hadhebeenasked,wouldhavesaidthathestuckwithMalthustoforestallrevolution.58Rather,theclaimmustbethatDarwinwasnotawareofthelegitimatingneedstowhichthestabilityofMalthusiandoctrineinhistheorisingwasaresponse.Thereareatleastthreeclustersofdifficultieswithalegitima-tionexplanationsoconstrued.First,therearehistoricaldifficulties.ThecloserwelookattheVictorianscene,theharderitbecomestomaintainthetidygeneralisationsonwhichtheexplanationdepends.Considerthatequation:Malthusian=middle-class=Darwin=bosses.Yes,Malthushadsupportedthemiddle-classcauseofPoorLawre-form.Buthehadopposedthatothermiddle-classcause,reformoftheCornLaws.Thoselawsprotectedthedomesticgrainmarketfromfor-eigncompetition.Inopposingtheirreform,Malthussidedwiththeinterestsofaristocraticandgentlemanlylandownersagainstmiddle-classfactorybosses(whowantedgraincoststofallsothatworkers’wagescouldfallinconsequence).59Indeed,forallthegrowthinin-dustrialisation,thedominanteliteinEnglandinthe1830swerethelandowners.TheDarwinfamily’swealthcamemorefromlandandotherpropertythanfrommanufacture.60SoDarwin’sstickingwithCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIndependence,historyandnaturalselection161MalthuswasnotstraightforwardlyintheinterestsoftheChartist-threatenedfactorybosses.Second,thereareevidentialdifficulties.Anumberofapparentlyrelevantsortsoffactsturnout,oninspection,tobeirrelevanttoevaluatingthelegitimationexplanation’struthorfalsehood.Itisir-relevant,forexample,whetherthepoorandpowerlessinfactbecamecomplacentuponencounteringDarwin’sMalthusiantheory.Rather,ifthetheorypacifiedthepoor,thenitsuccessfullyfulfilleditsfunc-tion;andifnot–asappearstobethecase–thenitsimplyfailedtofunctionproperly.61ItislikewiseirrelevantwhatDarwinhimselfthoughthewasdoinginstickingwithMalthus.Onthelegitima-tionexplanation,whateverDarwin’sconsciousmotivesinkeepingwithaMalthusiantheory,itwasatanunconsciouslevelthathere-spondedtotheneedforsuchatheory.Ifunconsciousmotivesdonotannouncethemselvesinthedocumentaryrecord,then,itseems,somuchtheworseforthedocuments,andthedesireforexplanationsthatdrawuponthem.Third,thereareontologicaldifficulties.Ifweacceptthelegiti-mationexplanation,weacceptaholisticontologyforsociallife,withcollectiveneedsthatareunconsciouslyharboured,uncon-sciouslycommunicatedandunconsciouslyactedupon,bymecha-nismswhollymysterious.62Inonesense,toindicatethisismerelytoflagthepointthat,atpresent,thereisanontologicaljobofworktodo.Butthatwouldbedisingenuous.ThereisalongtraditionofAnglophoneflinchingfromholisminsocialexplanation.Indeed,itmightwellbe–orsothosewhobackthelegitimationexplanationcouldargue–thatsqueamishnessaboutcollectiveneedsanduncon-sciouslinesofactionisitselfevidenceofthelegitimatingpowerofDarwin’stheory.MaybepeoplebredtoDarwinianthinking,withitsemphasisontheindividual,everafterregardindividualistexplana-tionsassensibleandholisticexplanationsassuspicious.Thesocialfunctionofthetheoryofnaturalselectionmaytherebyhavebecomeinvulnerabletoexposure,forwhereverthetheorygoes,ittakesanobfuscatingprejudiceaboutontologyalongwithit.63vitheveracausaidealandthesocialusesofmalthusWhatarethealternatives?ItisnoexplanationtosaythatDarwin’stheorisingsettledonaMalthusiantheorybecause,whenheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n162gregoryradickdevelopedthattheory,hehituponthetruth.IftheindependencethesisrequiresthisviewofDarwin’sstickingwithMalthus,thenthatthesisisanon-starter.Peoplecannotbesaidtoacceptatheorybecauseitistrue.Theymayacceptitbecausetheybelievetheev-idenceshowsthetheorytobetrue,orbecausethetheoryismoreparsimoniousthanitsrivals,orbecauseitfitswellwithpriorbeliefsandattitudes.Theymayacceptitbecausethoseinauthorityhavepronouncedthetheory‘true’.InthecaseofDarwinandMalthus,somecombinationoftheabove,properlyunderstood,indeedconsti-tutesamoresatisfyingversionoftheinseparabilitythesisthantheMarxianone,orsoIarguebelow.Butthetruthofatheory,anytheory,hasnopowertoexplainwhythisorthatindividualorcommunityacceptsthetheory.64Thereisanotherreason,specifictothehistoryofevolutionarybiology,fordismissingthetruthoftheMalthusiantheoryofnatu-ralselectionasexplanatory.SincethesynthesisofDarwinismandMendeliangeneticsinthe1930sand1940s,Darwinianshavenotregardedthestruggleforexistenceasacauseofnaturalselection.Astheynowunderstandthetheory,selectionoccurswhetherornotresourcesarescarce.Allthatmattersisthattherearediffer-encesoffitnesswithinapopulation.CommentingonthepreviouslycentralroleofMalthusianpopulationpressure,RonaldFisher,apre-eminentsynthetictheorist,wrotein1930thattherewas‘somethinglikearelicofcreationistphilosophyinarguingfromtheobserva-tion,letussay,thatacodspawnsamillioneggs,thatthereforeitsoffspringaresubjecttoNaturalSelection...’65WiththepassingofVictoriansociety,strugglepassedoutofthefoundationofDarwin’stheory.SoDarwincannothavestuckwithMalthusbecausetheMalthu-siantheorywasthetruetheory.Norcananyotherscientificseekeraftertruth,inwhateversocialcontext,havesettledonaMalthusiantheorybecauseitwastrue.ToexplainthestabilityofstruggleinDarwin’stheorising,weneedtolooktoalocaland,quiteprobably,uniquecontext.Onthisissue,theinseparabilitythesisappearstobethewinner.But,aswehaveseen,theMarxianversionofthethesiswinsathighcost,demandingpermanentlyblurredhistoricalvision,cavalierdisregardofDarwin’slikelyself-descriptionandbaroqueon-tologicalcommitments.Amoreattractiveversionofthethesisisnowemerging.Itcen-tresontheprinciplethatguidedDarwin’sreasoning,theveracausaCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIndependence,historyandnaturalselection163ideal.66Wehavealreadyseenhowlocalwasthatideal.67Whatwehavenotnoticedthusfarareitsculturalpolitics.WhenLyellpublishedhisthreevolumesofveracausageologyinthe1830s,thecharacterofthesciencesinBritainwasbeginningtochangeinafundamentalway.Atthattime,Anglicanclericsaloneheldthesmallnumberofscientificpostsatthetwoancientuniversities,OxfordandCambridge,thatdominatedtheelitelifeofthenation.68Church,stateandsciencethusenjoyedstronginstitutionallinks.However,thanksespeciallytoScottishdissatisfactionsandtomove-mentswithintheWhigparty–nowreachingouttogroupsindissentfromAnglicandoctrine–thoselinkswerecomingtobeincreasinglycontested.Inthelate1820s,whentheself-consciouslyScottishLyellbegantowritehisPrinciplesofGeology,hissympathieswerebe-comingevermoreWhiggish;andhesawhisbooksasanattempttoexpungebiblicalreligionfromgeology.69Geologyinparticularhadattractedthedevout.Lyell’sfirstteacheringeology,theOxfordclericWilliamBuckland,hadclaimedtofindevidenceofthefloodthatboreNoah’sark.InBuckland’sview,thisfloodwasbutthemostrecentinaseriesofcatastrophesthatGodhadvisitedupontheEarthinpreparationforthearrivalofhumans.WhereBucklandofferednarrativesthatarguablyharmonisedwithScripture,Lyell–followingalongtraditionofScottishliberalsinhishostilitytoTory,Anglican,Oxonianalliances–eschewedsuchnarrativesasaltogetherunscientific.AccordingtoLyell,ascientific,veracausageologydidnotadmittheexistenceofcatastrophes,thelikesofwhichhadneverbeenobserved.Lyell’sreformsstruckattheEnglisheliteandtheircomplacencies.Ifthereformssucceeded,theviewsofthecleric-geologistswouldceasetocountasscientificexplanations.Justasimportant,thecleric-geologists,beholdentotheChurchofEnglandfortheirlivelihoods,wouldceasetocountasmenofscience.70RecallthatDarwin,adiscipleofLyell,wassearchingforaveracausatheoryofspeciesorigins.InthemonthsfollowinghisreadingofMalthus,Darwinbelievedhehadfoundthebeginningsofanevenbetterversionoftheveracausatheoryhealreadyhad.Histheo-risingstabilisedaroundaMalthusiancoreinpartbecausehehadreadMalthus’Essayintheautumnof1838,andinpartbecause,inDarwin’sestimation,theMalthusiantheoryhedevelopedthereafterconformedmorecloselythananyofhisprevioustheoriestotheveracausaideal.Withtheculturalsettingofthatidealnowinview,theCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n164gregoryradicktwopartsofthisexplanationcaneachbetiedtotheWhigreformdrive,inandoutofthesciences.LetustakethereadingofMalthusfirst.CommentinginhisPrinciplesoncompetitivestruggleasthetruecauseofspeciesex-tinction,Lyellhadquoted,notMalthus,buttheSwissbotanistAugustindeCandolle:‘Alltheplantsofagivencountryareatwarwithoneanother.’71LyellhadmadenoreferencetoMalthus’Essayatall.AtamomentofunrestoverthePoorLaw,however,Darwin–eagertoresolvetheconflictbetweenhisownobservationsandLyell’stheoryofextinction–foundaresolutioninthewritingsofMalthus.TheeffectwastoinitiatethatseriesofmodificationsinDarwin’sthinkingwhich,overthenextmonths,woulddevelopintothetheoryofnaturalselection.TotheextentthatDarwin’spositionamongtheWhigchatteringclassespredisposedhimtoassociateMalthuswiththeideaofintense,competitive,providentialstruggle,Darwin’sWhigaffiliationsthushelpexplainwhyhereadMalthus’Essaywhenhedid.AsforDarwin’sespousaloftheveracausaidealinthefirstplace,itwasnotsomuchDarwin’sasLyell’sWhigaffiliationsthatmatter.Aswehaveseen,LyellhadadvocatedtheidealaspartoftheWhigdrivetoreformBritishinstitutions.WhentheLyellianDarwinconformedhistheorisingonspeciestotheveracausaideal,hethusalignedhistheorieswithWhigambitionsforBritishscienceandsocietygenerally.Thehistoryofchangingviewsonmethodcanoftenseemre-motefromthesocialhistoryofthesciences.Whenitcomestoex-plainingthestabilityofstruggleinDarwin’stheorising,however,anattempttointegratethesehistoriesoffersseveraladvantages.First,doingsoenablesustoexplainDarwin’sMalthusianismwithoutex-plainingitaway.72ThereisnodenyingortrivialisingofthesocialusesofMalthusinDarwin’stimeandplace.Onthecontrary,weseehowcrucialwasDarwin’sproximitytotheWhigconversationaboutMalthus.Second,thereisnoneedtoignorewhatDarwinthoughthewasdoing.Darwin’sself-consciousmotivesandalle-giancesarethestartingpointforthesocial-veracausaexplanation.Third,wearesavedfrompostulatingobscuremechanismsofuncon-sciousresponsetosocialneeds.Theexplanationpointstowardsmediatedcausalsequences,complicatedbutintelligible,leadingfromDarwin’sMalthusianculturetothestableMalthusianismofhisscience.Theupshotisanewoption:inseparabilitywithoutEngels.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIndependence,historyandnaturalselection165viidarwinianconclusionsThequestionposedinthischapterabouttheindependenceofthethe-oryofnaturalselectionfromitshistorycanbeposedofanysuccess-fulscientifictheory.ItisneverthelessfittingthatDarwin’stheoryinparticularshouldcomeunderscrutiny.AsPhilipKitcherpointsout,theDarwinianviewoflifebelongstoanerathatsawtheburgeoningofhistoricalthinkingacrossintellectualculture.Wherehistoryhadpreviouslybeenlittlenoticed–inthecomposingoftheBible,intheheavens,inthestructureoforganisms–educatedpeoplebegantoseesignsofhistoricalprocess.73Tolookforthosesignsinthetheoryofnaturalselectionitselfisthustotakethehistoricistattitudehomeagain.Anotherconsiderationisthattheindependenceandinseparabilitythesesresemble,inaroughandreadyway,divergentinterpretationsoftheDarwinianhistoryoflife,nowmuchdebated.Onthe‘indepen-dence’side,thereareargumentsthatlifewasconstrainedtoevolvemuchasithas,thatthetrajectoryoflifewasfairlyrobustinthefaceofcontingenthistory.Evenifmuchinthepasthadbeenotherwise,organismswouldstillhaveevolvedeyes,wingsandotherfamiliarfeatures.Thesearesimplythebestsolutionstocertainproblemsofsurvivalonourplanet.Naturalselectionhasconvergedonthemtimeandagain,andwouldprobablyhavedonesohoweverdifferentthepast.Onthe‘inseparability’side,thereareargumentsthattheactualhistoryoflifewasshapedfundamentallybycontingentevents,thatitall–weall–couldhaveturnedoutquitedifferently.Anasteroidcollisionhereratherthanthere,atthistimeratherthanthat,andtheearthmightnowsupportradicallydifferentformsoflife.Lifeasweknowitisinseparablefromtheaccidentsthatmarkitshistory.74Thematchbetweentheinseparabilitythesisinthehistoryofscienceandthiscontingentistthesisinevolutionarybiologyisnocoincidence.Oneofthebooksthatsethistoriansofscienceposingsceptical,counterfactual,contextualquestionsaboutpastscientifictheoriesinthefirstplacewasThomasKuhn’sTheStructureofScientificRevolutions(1962).Inhisconclusion,KuhnfamouslyurgedreaderstoviewtheadvanceofscientificknowledgemuchasDarwinhadviewedtheadvanceofbiologicalform.ThemessageKuhndrewfromDarwinwascontingentist.OnKuhn’saccount,thetheoryofnaturalselectionmadeitpossibletounderstandhowCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n166gregoryradicklifecouldevolve,diversifyandcomplexifywithouttherebeingagoaltoevolvetowards–andthiswaswhatmostdeeplyunsettledDarwin’scontemporaries.Insimilarfashion,Kuhnargued,histori-anscouldnowwritethehistoryofsciencewithoutsupposingthattherewasafinalgoaltowardswhichscientificknowledgewaspro-gressing.Inscienceasinlife,wroteKuhn,theprocesswasoneof‘evolutionfromprimitivebeginnings’,not‘evolutiontowardanything’.75ThosewhoviewDarwin’stheoryasinseparablefromitshistori-calmatrixwillfinditeasyenoughtodeveloptheparallelbetweenDarwin’stheoryandaninseparabilitythesisaboutthetheory.Thetheoryofnaturalselection,theywillsay,revealedspeciesascon-tingententities,bornofchancevariationandconditionsoflifethathappenedtoprevailataparticulartimeandplace.Likewise,outsidehisspecifichistoricalmatrix,Darwinmightwellnothavemadehisparticularassumptions,orresolvedacrucialconflictbetweentheoryandobservationashedid.Itisevenpossibletoimaginealternativesuccessfulbiologieswhichdonotincludethetheoryatall.Nexttakethematterofkinds.Darwin’stheoryrevealedspeciestobenon-naturalkinds,inventednotbyGodbutbytaxonomists.Nowhisto-rianshavethrowndoubtonthenaturalnessoftheDarwiniankind‘adaptation’.Thereisnothinginnaturethatrequiresustoconceiveplantsandanimalsasmosaicsofmechanicalcontrivances.DarwininheritedthatconceptionfromapeculiarlyBritishtradition.Finally,thereareexplanationsofstability.Totheextentthatspeciesappearedstable,Darwin’stheoryattributedthatstabilitynottosomeinnercoherence,buttothesurroundingconditionsoflife.Inabroadlysimilarmove,historianshaveemphasisedexplanatoryconnectionsbetweenthestabilityofMalthusianstruggleinDarwin’stheorisingandthesurroundingsocialcontext,inparticulartheWhigreformdrive.IsitreallymoreintheDarwinianspirittoholdthatDarwin’sowntheoryisacontingentproductofsocialhistory,ratherthanatimelesstruth?Beforetheyacceptthissurprisingclaim,thosewhofavourtheindependencethesiswillrightlyaskformore.Theywillquerythenotionofa‘successful’biology,andasktoseeindetailhowacre-ationistorsaltationistbiology,say,couldbesuchathing.76TheywillcastdoubtonwhetherDarwinandWallace’sco-discoveryofthetheoryofnaturalselection–sopatentanexampleoftheoristsCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIndependence,historyandnaturalselection167convergingindependentlyonthetruth–canbeotherwiseexplained.Theywillrebukeasfallacioustheinferencethatbecausethekind‘adaptation’emergedinoneculturealone,thereforethekindisnotnatural.TheywillinsistthatDarwin’sveracausaideal,thoughlocalincertainrespects,engenderedarespectforempiricalsupportthatiscommontoallviablemethodologicalideals;anditwasthisrespectthatmadeDarwinstickwithMalthusianstruggleoncehehappeneduponit.Makingupourmindsovertheindependenceorinseparabil-ityofDarwin’stheoryfromitshistorythusrequiresusatthesametimetomakeupourmindsaboutDarwin’sintellectuallegacies.Weneedtodecidenotonlyhowbesttohonourthem,but,indeed,whattheyare.notesEarlierversionsofthischapterwerepresentedinCambridge,Leeds,YorkandStLouisin1999and2000.Iamgratefulforthecom-mentsIreceivedonthoseoccasions,and,fordetailedcriticismofmorerecentversions,toJonHodge,ThomasDixon,LindsayGledhillandJohnChristie.1.K.MarxtoF.Engels,18June1862,quotedinSchmidt1971,46.2.Hacking1999,esp.ch.3,providesthebestoverviewofthesedebates.Forasummary,seeRadick2002.TheanalysisofthischapterowesagreatdealtoHacking’sargumentsandexample.Onthe‘constructivist’or‘contextualist’turnamonghistoriansofscience,seeGolinski1998andLightman1997,Introduction.ForanotherassessmentinrelationtoDarwinianbiology,seeRuse1999b,discussedinRadick2003.3.Onthehistoryofsuchtalk,seeSchaffer1990.4.Inevitable,thatis,sofarasthescientificenterpriseasweknowitre-mainedagoingconcern.SeeHacking2000.5.OneitemonMarx’s1862listthatIshallnotdiscusshereistheideathatcompetitioninnatureresultsinanincreasingdivisionoflabour.Fordiscussion,see,e.g.,Ospovat1981,chs.7–9;Limoges1994;Tammone1995;Ruse1999b,241–5;Hodge,thisvolume;andtheIntroductiontothisvolume.6.C.Darwin1958,140.7.OnthenatureofDarwin’sintelligence,seeGould2000.Darwinhim-selfglossed‘genius’ratherun-Romantically,asaboveall‘unflinching,undauntedperseverance’;seeDarwin[1871]1981,2,328.ForDarwin’sownmostfamouseurekastory,concerningtheprincipleofdivergence,seeDarwin1958,120–1.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n168gregoryradick8.Anoldbutstilluseful‘bigpicture’viewofhowcapitalismbegatDarwinismisSandow1938.OnthesocialandeconomichistoryofBritaininthisperiod,seeDaunton1995.9.SeeHodge,thisvolume.10.Ontherun-uptotheBeaglevoyage,seeBrowne1995,ch.6.OntheimperialcontextandcontentofDarwin’stheorising,seeHodge,thisvolume.11.McDonald1998isanovelabout‘MrDarwin’sShooter’.Covington’sBeaglejournaliscurrentlyavailableontheweb.SeeCovington1995.12.Forastudyofauthority,classificationandmuseumsinnineteenth-centurynaturalhistory,seeBarton2000.Onmuseumsinsciencegen-erally,seePyensonandSheets-Pyenson1999,ch.5.13.OnDarwinandthebreeders,seeSecord1981,1985.Forgeneralback-groundonanimalbreedinginVictorianBritain,seeRitvo1987.14.Malthus1826.Darwinreadthesixthedition.Thefirst,quitedifferenteditionwaspublishedin1798.OnMalthus,seeWinch1987.15.C.Darwin1958,120.16.DesmondandMoore1991,153–4,196–7,201,216–18,264–7.Forascathingindictmentof‘Malthus’LawofPopulationandtheNewPoorLawframedinaccordancewithit’,seeEngels[1845]1987,281.17.Foranattempttousecomputermodellingtosettlesimilarissuesaboutthehistoryofquantumphysics,seePessoa2001.18.Fordiscussionofthispoint,seethefourthsectionbelow.19.SeeHull,thisvolume,andHodge2000.20.Onpre-Darwiniantheoriesoflife’shistoryanddiversity,seeBowler1989.Onthe‘singularityofLyell’,seeBartholomew1979.21.SeeHodge,thisvolume,andHodgeandKohn1985.22.Wallace’spaper,‘OntheTendencyofVarietiestoDepartIndefinitelyfromtheOriginalType’,wasreadattheLinnaeanSocietyinLondonon1July1858,jointlywithapaperbyDarwinandanexcerptfromoneofDarwin’sletters.AllarereprintedinDarwinandWallace1958.TworecentanthologiesofWallace’swritingsareCamerini2001andBerry2002.ArecentbiographyofWallaceisRaby2001.23.Kottler1985.24.Hodge1991b,esp.191–300.SeealsoBeddall1968and,ontheimperialcontextofDarwin’sandWallace’sbiogeographicalviews,J.R.Moore2005.25.J.R.Moore1997.ForWallaceonnaturalselectionandpoliticalecon-omygenerally,seeColeman2001.IthasbeenallegedthatDarwinwasindebtedtoWallacefortheprincipleofdivergence(see,e.g.,Brooks1984,esp.ch.11,epilogue).ThemostcarefuldiscussionsoftheissuesareKohn1981andBeddall1988.NeitherfindstheallegationCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIndependence,historyandnaturalselection169persuasive.OnDarwin’sindependentdevelopmentoftheprinciple–themostimportantadditiontothetheoryofnaturalselectionfollow-ingitsformulationinthelate1830s–seeOspovat1981,chs.7–8andKohn1985b.26.ForDarwinon‘species’,seeBeatty1985,Hodge1986,Stamos1996,Sta-mos1999andMcOuat2001.SeealsothechapterbyHodgeandRadick,thisvolume.27.Talkof‘naturalkinds’datesfromtheVictorianera.SeeHacking1991,111–12.28.C.Darwin[1859]1964,3.29.C.Darwin[1859]1964,188–9.AfamouspassagefromDarwin’sbookonorchidsalsobearsquotation:‘ifamanweretomakeamachineforsomespecialpurpose,butweretouseoldwheels,springs,andpulleys,onlyslightlyaltered,thewholemachine,withallitsparts,mightbesaidtobespeciallycontrivedforthatpurpose.Thusthroughoutnaturealmosteverypartofeachlivingbeinghasprobablyserved,inaslightlymodifiedcondition,fordiversepurposes,andhasactedinthelivingmachineryofmanyancientanddistinctspecificforms.’Darwin1862,348.30.ThemostcompletehistoryoftheconcepttodateisAmundson1996,thoughitpaysscantattentiontocontextualissues.31.WhatofFrance?DarwinlearnedfromLamarckandCuvier,bothofwhomdealtwithadaptations.AsTobyAppelhasargued,however,theFrenchnaturalistsofthelateeighteenthandearlynineteenthcenturies‘hadnoneoftheBritishobsessionwithcontrivance’,perhapsbecausemachineswerelessconspicuousinFrencheconomiclife(Appel1987,57).32.Boyle1688,sectionii;Ray1692;Gillespie1987.ExcellentintroductionstothehistoricalliteratureonnaturaltheologyareBrooke1991,ch.6andBrookeandCantor1998,ch.5.33.Boyle1688,47,spellinganditalicsinoriginal;discussedinGould1998,13.OntheStrasburgclockandBoyleannaturalphilosophy,seeShapin1996,32–7.Ontheculturalhistoryofclockimagery,seeO.Mayr1986.34.OnthedevelopmentofBritishnaturaltheologybetweenBoyleandPaley,seeBrooke1974.35.OntheBritishleadinhorologyintheeighteenthcenturyanditsso-cialandeconomicconsequences,seeLandes1983,ch.14;Schaffer1996.36.Turner1993,ch.4,esp.101–9.37.Gillespie1987.38.Gillespie1990,esp.225–6.39.Paley1819,ch.1.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n170gregoryradick40.OntheinfluenceofPaleyonDarwin,seeBrooke,thisvolume.OnPa-leyanCambridgeinDarwin’sstudentdays,seeFyfe1997.41.Paley1819,23–39.42.C.Darwin[1859]1964,83–4;Boyle1688,43.Richards,thisvolume,arguesforaHumboldtianratherthanaBoylean–Paleyangenealogyhere.OncontinuitiesanddiscontinuitiesbetweenBoyle’sDisquisitionandDarwin’sOrigin,seeGould1998.43.Cf.Ospovat1981,35–7.OnDarwinonadaptation,seeAmundson1996,27–32.Onthemodern-dayDarwinianconceptofadaptation,seeSober,thisvolume.44.AmongthescepticsabouttheDarwinianconceptofadaptation,seeesp.DepewandWeber1995,whoarguethat,contrarytotheBritishtraditionfromBoyletoDawkins,‘thereisnowatchmaker,blindorsighted,forthesimplereasonthatthereisnowatch.Naturalorganizationisnotanartifact,oranythinglikeit,butinsteadamanifestationoftheactionofenergyflowsininformedsystemspoisedbetweenorderandchaos’(477–8).45.Todes1989,chs.1–2.46.C.Darwin[1859]1964,63.47.HereIshallnotaddresstheseparateproblemofhowtoexplainthestabilityofDarwiniantheorywithinthebiologicalsciences.MyprimaryconcerniswithDarwin’sowntheorising,notwiththepublicreceptionofhistheory.48.TheDarwin–Malthusrelationshiphasbeenmuchexamined.Forasur-veyoftheliteratureuptothemid-1980s,seeLaVergata1985,953–8.NotableamongmorerecenteffortsareGordon1989andBenton1995.49.Seeesp.Marx’sprefacetoAContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy(Marx[1859]1959).OneofthemostinfluentialphilosophicaldiscussionsisCohen1978.50.SeethepaperscollectedinBukharin[1931]1971.51.OnMarx’sambivalencetowardsDarwin’stheoryofnaturalselection,seeWeikart1998b,ch.1.52.F.EngelstoP.L.Lavrov,12–17November1875,quotedinSchmidt1971,47.53.Young1985a,240.Youngexplicitlyalliedhimselfwiththeinterpreta-tivetraditionofMarxandEngels.See,respectively,Young1985a,239andYoung1985b,631–2.54.MyanalysishereisindebtedtotheexampleofRosen1996,esp.52,184–200.55.DesmondandMoore1991,294.OntheDesmond–MooremapoftheVictoriantransmutationdebates,Toriesbackedspecialcreation(nonat-ural/socialchange),Whigsbackednaturalselection(lawful,slow,grad-CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIndependence,historyandnaturalselection171ualnatural/socialchange)andradicalrevolutionariesbackedLamarck-ism(rapid,up-from-belownatural/socialchange).DesmonddevelopstheLamarckian-radicalconnectioninDesmond1989.Foralternativemaps,seeRupke1994andSecord2000.56.Munoz-Rubio˜1999isinmuchthesamevein.57.HilaryRose,forexample,adducestheDarwin–Malthusconnectionaspartofacritiqueofevolutionarypsychology(H.Rose2000,esp.107–10).Forsimilarattacksontheoldersociobiology,seeLewontin1993,ch.1,esp.9–10;Sahlins1976,xv,ch.4.58.AskingDarwinwhyhestuckwithaMalthusiantheoryis,ofcourse,notthesameasaskinghimwhether,inthelightofhisMalthusiantheory,competitivestruggleisasocialgood.SeePaul,thisvolume,forDarwin’saffirmativeresponsetothelatterquestion.59.Winch1987,esp.ch.5.60.Hodge1994andthisvolume.61.TheminerChesterArmstrongreadDarwinenroutetoreadingMarxisteconomics.SeeJ.Rose2001,74.62.Rosen1996,197.63.RoughlythesamedifficultiesattachtothelegitimationexplanationofDarwin’spublicclaimsthatnaturalselectionisprogressive(asinGould1996,ch.12).Foracritique,andanattempttosupplyabetterexplanation,seeRadick2000.Onthegeneralhistoryoftheorisingaboutevolutionaryprogress,seeRuse1996.64.Hacking1992,14;1999,81–2,232(note13).65.Fisher1930,43–4,quoteon43,italicsinoriginal.Fordiscussion,seeDepewandWeber1995,269andGayon,thisvolume.66.WhatfollowsisamodifiedversionoftheargumentinDepewandWeber1995,esp.chs.3and5.Fordiscussion,seeRadick1998,353–5.67.ForthehistoryoftheidealfromNewtontoDarwin,seeKavaloski1974.SeealsoL.Laudan1981,ch.7.68.Turner1978.69.Secord1997.70.Onscripturalgeologyanditsopponents,seeGillispie[1951]1996.Rupke1996helpfullysummariseslaterhistoricalworkonthistopic.OnLyell’sveracausageology,seeR.Laudan1982.71.Lyell[1830–3]1990,ii,131.72.Cf.thestricturesinShapin1982,178;ShapinandBarnes1979.73.Kitcher,thisvolume.74.Fortheconvergentistcase,seeConwayMorris1998;forthecontingen-tistcase,seeGould1989.Foranoverview,seeSterelnyandGriffiths1999,ch.12.Onthetheologicaldimensionsofthisdebate,seeRuse,thisvolume.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n172gregoryradick75.Kuhn1970,ch.13,esp.170–3,quoteon170–1,italicsinoriginal.ForKuhnasinspirationfortheory–historyinseparabilitytheses,seeHacking1999,96–9.SofarasKuhn’sbookinfluencedStephenJayGould,themostprominentcontingentist,itmaybethatKuhnliesbe-hindtheevolutionary-biologicalsideofthesymmetryaswellasthehistory-of-scienceside.SeeGould2002,967,and,foradistinctechoofKuhnonevolution-away-not-towards,Gould1996,173.76.Foranattempttomakesenseof‘success’,seeHacking1999,69–70,74–8.Onsaltationisttendenciesinthehistoryofevolutionarybiology,seeSchwartz1999andGould2002,ch.5.OnthesuccessfulbiologythatmighthavebeenifnotforDarwin,seeBowler2008.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\ndavidl.hull7Darwin’sscienceandVictorianphilosophyofscienceiscientificmethodinthedebatesovertheoriginSoonafterthepublicationoftheOriginofSpecies(1859),Darwinsentoutoverahundredcomplimentarycopiestoavarietyofcon-temporaries,includinghisformergeologyteacher,AdamSedgwick.Darwinwaspreparedforattacksonthecontentofhistheory.Whathehadnotexpectedwereattacksonhismethods.Sedgwick,forexample,writingintheSpectatorinMarch1860,complainedthat‘Darwin’stheoryisnotinductive,–notbasedonaseriesofacknowl-edgedfactspointingtoageneralconclusion,–notapropositionevolvedoutofthefacts,logically,andofcourseincludingthem.Touseanoldfigure,Ilookonthetheoryasavastpyramidrestingonitsapex,andthatapexamathematicalpoint.’1Inotherwords,forSedgwick,theproblemwiththetheoryofnat-uralselectionwasthatDarwinhadnotsupporteditintherightway.Therightwaywastoshowthatthetheorywasageneralisationfromawiderangeofparticularfacts.Thatwasinduction.Thewrongwaywastoinventthetheoryasahypothesisandthendeducefromitparticularfacts.Thatwasthemethodofhypothesis.InSedgwick’sestimation,thetheoryofnaturalselectionwasnotaninductivegen-eralisation,butaninventedhypothesis,andassuchcouldclaimnosupportfromthefacts.Hisimageofthepyramidistelling.Ashesawit,ininduction,awidebaseofparticularfactssupportedasin-gletheoryuptop,justasthebaseofapyramidsupportstherestofthestructure.Darwinhadproducedanupside-downpyramidofatheory,invertingtherelationsthatoughttoobtainbetweentheoryandfacts.Theresultingstructurewasaccordinglydoubtful.173CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n174davidl.hullSedgwickwasfarfromaloneinfindingfaultwithDarwinonmethodologicalgrounds.Thethreebest-knowntheoristsofsci-entificmethodinthemid-Victorianera,JohnHerschel,WilliamWhewellandJohnStuartMill,likewiseweighedinwithverdictsonthetheoryofnaturalselection.Eachtheoristhadhisownlineoninventedhypothesesversusinductivegeneralisationsinscience.InthelightofSedgwick’sremarks,onemightexpectthatthosewhoregardedinventedhypothesesaslegitimatewouldhavebeenmoreopentoDarwin’stheorisingthanthosewhodidnot.Butjusttheoppositeseemstobethecase.Mill,themostwaryofthemethodofhypothesis,lookedmorefavourablyuponDarwin’stheorythaneitherHerschelorWhewelldid(althoughnotmuchmorefavourably).Foralltheirphilosophicaldifferences,Herschel,WhewellandMillfoundthemselvesinbasicagreementaboutthetheoryofnaturalselection.Atbest,itwasnotgoodenough,andcertainlynotascredibleasthetheoryofcreationbyadesign-ingintelligence.Atworst,itwasnotalegitimatescientifictheoryatall.ThischapterexploresthemethodologicalissuesthataroseinthedebateoverDarwin’stheoryinthenineteenthcentury.Therewillbenoattempttodealwithalltheissuesthatmatteredinthephi-losophyofscienceoftheera,norwiththefullrangeofopinionsonwhatDarwincalled‘therightprinciplesofscientificinvestigation’.Rather,theemphasiswillbeonthoseaspectsoftheVictoriandiscus-siononmethodthatilluminatetheresponsesofHerschel,Whewell,MillandDarwinhimself.Inpartsuchanemphasismakesbiograph-icalsense,sinceHerschelandWhewellinfluencedDarwin’sviewsonmethod.NoevidenceexiststoshowthatMillalsoinfluencedDarwininthisrespect.Thewritingsofallofthesemen,however,shapedthereceptionofDarwin’stheory.2Themid-Victorianerawasnottheonlytime,ofcourse,thatthetheoryofnaturalselectionprovokedmethodologicaldebate.Gener-ationalchangelaterinthecenturybroughtnewphilosophicalpreoc-cupationsinrelationtoDarwin’stheory.Someofthesechangeswillbediscussedinthefinalsection.Buttheearliereraisofspecialinterest.Itwasthenthatpublicdiscussionofmethodologicalissuesoccurredonaremarkablescale,especiallyinresponsenottothebiologicalbuttothephysicalsciencesoftheday.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nVictorianphilosophyofscience175iithefermentinmethodologicalthinkinginmid-victorianbritainFormid-VictorianBritishmenofscience,thebest,shiningexam-pleofinductivesciencewasIsaacNewton’sgravitationalmechan-icsforearthlyandcelestialmotions.Newtonianmechanicshadtwogreatinductivestrengths.First,theactionofthegravitationalforcecamewithinobservationalwitnesshereonearth,infalling,rollingandswingingbodies.Byextrapolatingthisforcetoterrestrialtidesascausedbylunarmotionsaswellastotheplanets’orbitsaroundthesun,thisscienceproceeded,itwasheld,byinductivegeneralisationfromobservedfacts.Second,thelawofgravitationwasquantitative–theattractiveforcewasinverselyproportionaltothesquareofthedistancebetweenanytwobodies.Notonlywasthislawcapableofexplainingandpredictingprecisepropertiesofplanetaryorbits,butalsoitseemeddemonstrablethatnootherlawfortheforce,aninversecubelawsay,coulddoso.Asanexampleofsuccessininductivescience,thisNewtoniantriumphwashardtoemulate.EversinceNewton’sownday,var-ioustheorists,includingreputablesavantsseekingtoaccountforelectrical,magnetic,thermal,opticalandchemicalphenomena,hadputforwardhypothesesadmittedlynotmeetingthesestandards:hy-potheses,especially,aboutfluidorsolidmedia,oftencalledethers,thatwereimpossibletoobservedirectlybysightortouch.Thesehypotheticalentitiesseemedtobefictionsorfigmentsofinventiveconjectureratherthansecurelyinferredfactualgeneralisations.Andiftheyprovidedpossibleexplanationsandpredictions,theydidnotprovidetheonlypossibleones.InBritaininthe1820s,thisgapbetweenhypotheticalpracticesandinductiveidealswasraisedtospecialurgencybycontroversiesconcerningtheverynatureoflightandsotheexplanationofallopticalphenomena.Opticswasseenascentralandconsequentialforallnaturalscience.Fortherewasnotmerelyadesiretoexplainrainbowsorpredicteclipses,butalsotounderstandtheinstrumentsdecisiveformuchscience,andtocomprehendsightitself.Ononetheory,favouredbyNewton,abeamoflightconsistedofastreamofparticleswhosediversemotionscauseddifferentsensations.Theseparticles,itwasgranted,weretoosmalltobedirectlyobservable;buttheirpowersandactionsweresupposedtodifferonlyindegreeCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n176davidl.hullfromtheobservablepowersandactionsinbodieslargeenoughtobeobserved.Theparticletheoryoflightwas,tothatextent,takentobesupportedinductivelybyfactswithinexperience.Therivalwaveorundulatorytheoryoflightcouldhardlybede-fendedthatway.Foritsupposedthatlightispropagatedaswavesinanetherealmediumwhichisnotonlyinvisible,intangibleandimponderable,butcanpermeatewhereordinarygasesandfluidscannot,beingpresentthereforeinvesselsevacuatedwiththebestairpumpsandinthevoidsbetweenthestars.Worstofall,whereastheparticlesoftheparticletheoryhadnoneoftheirbodilypropertiestotallydiminished,theether,insomeversions,hadallofitscharac-teristicsreducedtozero.Notmerelyanextremelyelasticmedium,itwasaperfectlyelasticone.Unsurprisingly,then,evenpartisansofthewavetheoryconcededthatitwasfarfrombeingageneralisa-tionfromexperience,ordefensibleastheonlypossibleexplanationforopticalfacts.Hypotheticalnotinductive,itseemedtooffernotknowledge,butconjecture.Andyet,bythe1820s,itsrecordofex-planatoryandpredictivesuccessesseemed,tomanyauthoritativeminds,farmoreimpressivethantherivalparticletheory.Thissuc-cessraisedtheissueofaclashbetweenstandardsandachievements.Thetheoryhavingthemostsuccesswiththenewestchallengeswasstillunabletomeettraditionalcriteriafortheoryappraisalasnaturalknowledge.Ifthewavetheorywasgoodscience,thenperhapsthosecriteriawerediscredited;conversely,ifthosecriteriawereupheld,thenthetheoryhadtoberejecteddespiteitsmanifestvirtues.JohnHerschel,astronomersonofWilliamHerschel,thefamousemigr´eastronomerfromGermany,wasEngland’smostadmired´manofsciencein1830.HisPreliminaryDiscourseontheStudyofNaturalPhilosophy,appearingthatyearinaprominentencylopaedicseriesofbooksforawidereadership,wasthenacommandingtext.However,inthistextHerschelprovidednosustainedunequivocalresolutionoftherolesofinductionandhypothesisinscience.HereaffirmedtheimpeccableinductivecredentialsofNewtoniangrav-itationalmechanics.Consideringoptics,headmittedthat,eventhoughthewavetheoryoflightdidnotpossesstheproperinductivecredentials,itwasmuchthebesttheoryoflightbecauseofitsex-planatoryandpredictivesuccesses.Thesesuccessessuggested,albeitveryuncertainly,thatitspostulatesmightcomeclosetobeingtruthsaboutthephysicalworld,althoughnoonecouldbesure.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nVictorianphilosophyofscience177Tenyearslater,Herschel’sgoodfriendWilliamWhewellpresentedanewdoctrineinhisPhilosophyoftheInductiveSciences(1840)–the‘consilienceofinductions’–thatwasdesignedtomakegravita-tionalastronomyandundulatoryopticslookmoresimilarintheircredentialsthantheywereusuallytakentobe.Bycontrast,theSys-temofLogicof1843,fromJohnStuartMill,aliberalmanoflettersandpolitics,upheldthetraditionalinsistencethatinductionsandhypothesesmustneverbeconfusedwithoneanother,andthatevenhypothesesthataregood,ashypotheses,donotconstituteinduc-tiveknowledge.Whewell’sandMill’sdivergencesonthisissuewererelatedtotheirdivergencesonothers.WhewellwasaprominentAnglican,Platonist,KantianTory;whileMillwasadirectphilo-sophicaldescendantofHume.LiketheFrenchphilosopherAugusteComtebeforehim,Millhadpositivistsympathiesandproposedtoextendthemethodsofnaturalsciencetohumanmindsandsocieties.Mill’sinductivismreflectedhisempiricismandhispositivism–doctrinesWhewellwasresolvedtoopposeandreplace.Darwinwaspublishing,then,atatimeofacute,collectivemethodologicalself-consciousness.InwhatfollowsIamconcernedwiththeinfluencethatphilos-ophyofsciencehadonthereceptionofDarwin’stheoryofevolu-tion.AssumingthatDarwin’scontemporarieswereinfluencedbytheviewsofthesenineteenth-centuryphilosophersofscience,whatweretheseviews?Somewillsaytheassumptionisunwarranted.JedBuchwald,amongothers,doubtswhetherargumentsoverissuessuchasthese‘didmuchhistoricalworkatall–whether,thatis,anyoneeveractuallypersuadedanyoneelsetochangeabelief’.3AttimesIshareBuchwald’scynicism.Toooftenitseemsthatgoodar-gumentsneverconvinceanyone.Evenso,BuchwaldandImustseesomepointingoodargumentsbecauseweattempttoprovidetheminourownwork.Ifwethinkthatargumentationcanconvinceourreaders,thenweareinnopositiontorejectoutofhandtheeffectsofsuchargumentationonthesubjectsofourenquiry.4iiiinductionWithintheworksofWhewell,HerschelandMillcertainpersis-tenttensionscanbefound.Oneconcernstheroleofdeductioninthemethodofinduction.EvenFrancisBacon,thepatronsaintCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n178davidl.hullofinduction,acknowledgedarolefordeductivereasoning.Whileemphasisingtheneedtoascendcarefullyandgraduallyfrompar-ticularstogeneralisationsofincreasingscope,Baconallowedthat,‘fromthenewlightofaxioms,whichhavebeeneducedfromthoseparticularsbyacertainmethodandrule...greaterthingsmaybelookedfor’,notleastnewparticulars.OnBacon’sview,theroadtoknowledge‘ascendsanddescends;firstascendingtoaxioms,thendescendingtoworks’.5TwocenturieslaterHerschelrepeatedBacon’spraiseofinductioninscience,6butthenwentontoremindthereaderthat‘thesuccess-fulprocessofscientificenquirydemandscontinuallythealternativeuseofboththeinductiveanddeductivemethod’.7Inthestudyofnature,‘wemustnot,therefore,bescrupulousastohowwereachtoaknowledgeofsuchgeneralfacts:providedonlyweverifythemcarefullywhenoncedetected’.8Whewelllikewiseinsistedontheneedtousebothinductionanddeductioninscience.InWhewell’sview,this‘mutualdependenceandcontrastofinductionanddeduc-tion,thissuccessivereasoninguptoprinciplesanddowntoconse-quences,isoneofthemostimportantandcharacteristicpropertiesoftruescience’.9Mill,too,despitehisreputationasanarch-inductivist,hadasimilaropinion.ForMill,itwasamistaketocelebrateBaconfor‘explodingtheviciousmethodpursuedbytheancientsofflyingtothehighestgeneralizationsfirst,anddeducingthemiddleprin-ciplesfromthem’,since‘thisisneitheraviciousnoranexploded,butauniversallyaccreditedmethodofmodernscience,andthattowhichitowesitsgreatesttriumphs’.10Oneneednotbeapedanttoseesomeproblemswithrespecttothe‘inductive’methodsbeingurgedbyHerschel,WhewellandMill.Allthreerepeatedlyinvoketheimportanceofobservationsoverhy-potheses.Ifnoerrorsareallowedintoone’ssystemofbelief,noerrorshavetobeeliminatedlater.Butnosoonerdotheyemphasisetheroleofobservationsinsciencethantheyrecant,pointingoutthecrucialroleplayedbyhypotheses.Theycounselledtheinvestigatorto‘lookbeforeyouleap’,butthenimmediatelywarnedthat‘hewhohesitatesislost’.RegardlessofwhatHerschel,WhewellandMillmayhavein-tended,themessagethattheirreaderstookawaywasthatgenuinesciencehadtobebuiltonanextensiveevidentialbase.Anythingelsewasnotgenuinescience.Nineteenth-centuryphilosophersofsciencewantedcertainty.Therewassomedebate,however,overtheproperrolesfordifferentCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nVictorianphilosophyofscience179formsofinductioninsecuringcertainty.ForHerschelandWhewell,eliminativeinductionwaspreferabletoenumerativeinduction.Ininductionbysimpleenumeration,oneproceedstoageneralisationfromobservedactualinstancesofcausalconnections.Forexample,thefindingthatallcasesofsmallpoxdiagnosedthusfar–allthepositiveenumerativeinstances–arecausedbycontagionfrompriorcasesjustifiestheconclusionthatthisdiseaseisalwayscausedinthisway.Ineliminativeinduction,oneproceedsnotfromobservedactualinstancesofcausalconnections,butfrompossiblecauses.Thechangesinrelativelevelofseaandlandstudiedbygeologistscouldbeduetothelandrising,theseasinkingorbothtogether.Furtherfactsaboutthesechangesmayservetoeliminateallbutoneofthosethreepossibilities,thusmakingitinductivelyproven.Initiallyanumberofpossiblecausesareconsidered,buteventuallyonlyasinglecauseremains.Atthetime,thenumberofknownkinds–andsothenumberofactualcauses,letalonepossibleones–washuge.Forexample,fromfiftytosixtyphysicalelementswereknown,andoverahundredthousandbiologicalspecies.Thenumberofparticularswasordersofmagnitudegreater.11Millwasnotintimidatedbysuchlargenum-bersofparticulars.Forhim,enumerativeinductionwasthebasicformofreasoning.Nevertheless,hesawsomeroleforeliminativeinduction.Mill’soverallmethodofsciencehadthreeparts:enu-merativeinduction,ratiocinationandverification.Inthehypothet-icalmethodthefirstofthesethreesteps–enumerativeinduction–issuppressed.Suchasuppressionislegitimate,inMill’sview,onlywhenthehypothesisinquestionhasalreadybeenshownbyelim-inativeinductiontobetheonlyhypothesisconsistentwiththefacts.12MuchofthedebatebetweenWhewellandMillwasoverowner-shipoftheterm‘induction’anditscognates.Bothmenextendedthemeaningoftheterm,butindifferentways.AccordingtoHerschel,Whewellviewedinductionastheprocessbywhichminds‘constructgeneralpropositionsthemselvesfromthecontemplationofparticu-lars,andattributetothemauniversalitywhichexperiencealoneisincapableofwarranting’.13InWhewell’sview,inductionwasnotalogicalprocessoftottingupparticularsoreliminatingpossiblecauses,butaprocessbywhichmindssuperinducedgeneralityonparticulars.ReadingWhewellasastrictinductivistwasdifficult,nomatterhowfrequentlyheusedtheterm‘induction’;andthisCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n180davidl.hulllackofstrictinductivismwasonethingthathiscontemporariesdis-likedabouthistheoryofscience.Mill,onthecontrary,bentoverbackwardstogivetheimpressionthathiswasthephilosophyoftheparticular.Tobesure,heacknowledgedthatinvestigatorscanle-gitimatelyreasonfromparticularstogeneralisationsandfromthesebacktoparticulars;but,accordingtoMill,generalisationswerenoth-ingbut‘collectionsofparticulars,definiteinkindbutindefiniteinnumber’.14Thus,allinferenceforMillwasreallyfromparticularstoparticulars.15Asaresult,Mill’scontemporariesinterpretedhimasbeinganinductivist,andrightlyso.IfMillhadnotexisted,historiansofphilosophywouldhavebeenforcedtoinventhim.16ivveraecausaeNomatterwhatmethodologicaltenetsoneespousedatthistime,theyhadtobedescribedas‘inductive’,andhaveastheirsourceBaconandNewton.Hypothesesweresuspect.Afterall,thegreatNewtonneverfeignedsuchthings.Directexperiencewassacred.TherewastobenoappealtotheoccultqualitiesofthemedievalSchoolmen.Rather,thecausesusedtoexplainnaturalphenomenahadtobetruecauses–‘veraecausae,’asNewton’sadmirerscalledthem.AccordingtoHerschel,theoristshadtolimitthemselvesto‘causesrecognizedashavingarealexistenceinnature,andnotbeingmerehypothesesorfigmentsofthemind’.17Ofcoursethosecausesshouldhavea‘realexistenceinnature’.Theproblemwasdecidinghowthestatusofbeingatruecausewastobeestablished.Thatprobleminturnraisedthequestionofhowtheveracausare-quirementrelatedtotheidealofbeinginductiveratherthanmerelyhypothetical.Traditionally,theanswerconcentratedonrequiringin-dependentevidencefortheexistenceofthecauseinvokedbyathe-ory.Iftheexistenceofthecausecouldbeevidencedbyfactsotherthanthosefactsitwasusedtoexplain,thenthatwasevidencein-dependentofexplanatoryvirtue.Suchacausewasareal,known,existingortruecause,notasupposed,fictional,conjecturalorhy-potheticalcause;and,tothatextent,thetheorywasnoinventedhypothesisbutaninductivetheory.Anadditionalrequirementwasthatthecauseinvokedbyatheoryhadtobeadequatetoproducetheeffectstobeexplainedbythetheory.Inbrief,then,theveracausaidealtraditionallyspecifiedthatboththeexistenceandtheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nVictorianphilosophyofscience181adequacyofacauseshouldbeevidencedindependentlyofthefactsexplained.Buthow,precisely,weretheseevidentialrequirementstobemet?Howcouldonebesurethatthecauseinvokedbyatheorywasin-deedatruecause?Herschel’sinitialsuggestionwasthattruecausesleadtoagreatmultitudeofeffectsinadditiontothosethatgaverisetoourknowledgeofthecauseinthefirstplace.Certainfactsarealreadyknown.Theyindicateapossiblecause.Ifthiscausegivesrisetonumerousadditionaleffectsthatarefoundtoexist,thenthiscauseislikelytobeatruecause.ButwhenHerschelturnedtogiv-ingexamplesoftruecauses,otherconsiderationscameintoplay.Forexample,numerousseashellscouldbefoundinrocksatagreatheightabovethesea.Severalcauseshadbeensuggestedatthetimeforthepresenceoftheseseashells:aplasticvirtueinthesoil,theinfluenceofcelestialbodies,fermentation,transportbypilgrimsorbirds,andtheencapsulationofshellsbysedimentationbeforethelandmasswaselevated.Herscheldismissedplasticvirtuesandcelestialinfluenceas‘figmentsoffancy’.Transportationbypilgrimsandbirdscouldaccountforasmallnumberofshellsbutthatwasall.Fermentationwasagenuinecauseforavarietyofphenomena,butnoonehadeverwitnessedfermentationproducinganythinglikeshells.However,seacreaturesdyingandsettlingintothemudatthebottomoftheseahappenedallthetime;andtheelevationoftheseatobecomedryland,thoughitoccurredoveramoreprotractedperiodoftime,hadalsobeenwitnessed.Asinthecaseofinduction,atensioncanbefoundinHerschel’scriteriafortruecauses:oneisdirectexperience,theotherisinfer-encetoadditionaleffects.Herschelcanbefoundsayingthatexpe-rienceisthe‘onlygroundofallphysicalenquiry’.18Forexample,ifyouwanttoexperienceforce,justwhirlastonearoundyourheadinasling.Withoutsuchdirectevidence,sciencewouldbeimpos-sible.However,Herschelalsoacknowledgesthatsomephenomenaaretoosmallortoolargetobeexperiencedinsuchadirectway.Forexample,onecanperceiveelectricitydirectlybyanelectricshock.Fromthisdirectperceptiononecanthenreasonaboutelectricityingeneral.Thedangerislettingadhochypothesesintrude.Herscheldesignedhisversionoftheveracausaprincipletoeliminatehy-pothesesthatwouldturnouttobeadhoc.Inhisview,onesignthatonehasidentifiedatruecausewastheabilitytoinferunanticipatedCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n182davidl.hullphenomena–phenomenathatnoonehadyetexperienced.Onthebasisofone’stheoreticalunderstanding,anas-of-yetunexperiencedphenomenonwaspredicted,pursuedanddiscovered.Nothingcouldbemoreconvincingthanthat!Whewell’swritingsshowsimilartensions.19Asmightbeex-pected,Whewell’sKantianphilosophyposedproblemsforanythinglikedirectexperience.ForWhewell,allobservationsweretosomeextent,aswewouldnowsay,‘theory-laden’;ortouseWhewell’sfrequentlyquotedaphorism,therewasa‘maskoftheoryoverthewholefaceofnature’.WhewellreinterpretedNewton’sveraecausaeasbeingembodiedinhisownconsilienceofinductions.20Whewelldidnoturge‘scientists’(hiscoinage)toabandonthesearchfortruecauses.Hesimplydownplayedtheroleofdirectexperiencewithre-specttotruecauses.Intheconsilienceofinductions,the‘theoreticalcausetakesitsplaceamongtherealitiesoftheworld,andbecomesatruecause’.21CertainlytherelaxationoftherequirementofdirectexperienceallowedWhewelltocountenanceallsortsoftheoreticalentities,suchastheether.Asheputit,thescienceofopticswas‘travelingrapidlytowardsasingletheoreticalview–thetheoryofundulations’.22WhewellalsodisagreedwithHerschel’suniformitarianviewofthepast.Herschelhadarguedthat,indecidingwhichcausesactedinthepast,onecaninferfromaperceivedcausetoothercausesofthesamekindbutnottocausesofdifferentkinds.Whewellsawnoreasonforthisexclusion.Inparticular,hewaswillingtocounte-nance‘catastrophes’–causesthatdonotdifferjustindegreefromexperiencedcauses(forinstance,earthquakesofamuchlargerscalethanthoseoccurringnowadays),butalsocausesofthesortneverexperiencedbyhumanbeings,includingsupernaturalones.Speciesgoingextinctmightwellbeexplainedbynaturalcausesofthesortstillinevidence;but,inWhewell’sview,theirinitialwholesaleap-pearanceatthebeginningofgeologicalcyclescouldnotbeexplainednaturalistically.Thecausalchainscouldbetracedbackonlysofarintime.Hence,Whewellconcluded,‘wemustcontemplatesupernatu-ralinfluencesaspartofthepastseriesofevents,ordeclareourselvesaltogetherunabletoformthisseriesintoaconnectedchain’.23Whewell’sreferencestoGodandsupernaturalcausesinhisworkonthehistoryandphilosophyofsciencewerenotintheleastun-usualatthetime.HerschelbeganhisPreliminaryDiscoursewithCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nVictorianphilosophyofscience183anextensivediscussionofthePowerandIntelligenceresponsiblefortheuniverseexhibitingOrderandDesign.Hearguedthat,con-trarytowhatmanypeoplethought,religionandsciencewerenotinopposition,for‘truthcanneverbeopposedtotruth’.Indeed,thestudyofsciencerendered‘doubtabsurdandatheismridiculous’.24Immediatelyafterextollingreligion,Herschellaunchedintoanequallylaudatorycelebrationofthepracticalapplicationsofsci-encefromthependulumtothesteamengine.SciencewastobehonouredforsupportingtheChristianfaithandprovidingpracticalresults.vdarwinonthemethodologicalvirtuesofhistheoryDarwinthoughtthathehadgoneaboutformulating,testingandenunciatinghistheoryofevolutionaccordingtothebestcanonsofscienceheldatthetime–chieflythosehederivedfromread-ingHerschel’sPreliminaryDiscourse.25Withrespecttotruecauses,Darwinthoughtthathewasonsafeground.26Histheoryofevolu-tionappealedtosuchuncontentiousfactsasthevariationsseeninlivingcreatures.Offspringlookedmuchliketheirparents,andsib-lingsweremoresimilartoeachotherthantootherorganismsintheirspecies.Itwaslikewiseamatterofcommonexperiencethatnotallorganismssurvivedlongenoughtoreproducethemselves,andthatjustwhichorganismssurvivedtoreproducewasaresultinpartofhowwelladaptedtheyweretotheirenvironments.Sofarassucces-sivechangesintheenvironmentscouldresultinsuccessivechangesintheorganisms,theevolutionofspeciesseemedatleastplausible.Darwinalsoplacedconsiderableweightontheanalogyfromartifi-cialtonaturalselection.Ifplantandanimalbreederscouldintroducesomuchchangeinsuchashorttime,howmuchmorechangecouldnaturehavebeenabletointroduceoverthelongexpansesoftimethatgeologistssuchasLyellpostulated?27Darwinhadgatheredmassiveamountsofdatainsupportofhistheorythatspeciesevolvethroughdescentwithmodificationbymeansofnaturalselection.AlthoughhecouldnotincludeallthisdataintheOriginofSpecies–anabstractofamuchlongerwork–hedidincorporatequiteabitandalludedtoadditionalevidenceelsewhere.28SomeofthephenomenathatDarwincitedwere,heCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n184davidl.hullsuggested,phenomenathathehadrecognisedbecausehistheoryindicatedthattheyshouldexist,mostnotablycertaincorrelationsbetweenembryonicdevelopmentandspeciesevolution.(HerschelandWhewellbothprizedthepredictionofunexpectedphenomena,thoughMilldidnot.29)Darwinalsodrewattentiontotheevidentialsupportderivingfromtheclassificationofanimalsandplants.Heacknowledgedthat,whilemanyspecieswereclearlydistinct,justasmanygradedimperceptiblyintoeachother.Brambleswereespe-ciallybramblyinthisrespect,aswereoaks.Moreover,inDarwin’sview,thegroups-within-groupsclassificationswhichhadbeenpro-ducedovertheyearssupportedbeliefintheevolutionofspecies.Thispatternisexactlywhatonewouldexpectifspeciesgaverisetospeciesinanever-expandingtreeoflife.30Inshort,Darwinthoughtthathehadmetthestandardsofinduc-tionsetbythephilosophersofscienceofhisday.Naturalselectionwasclearlyatruecause.RespondingtoSedgwick’scondemnation,DarwinaskedanotherteacherfromhisCambridgedays,thebotanistJohnStevensHenslow,toaskSedgwick,thenexttimethetwomenmet,whetheritwasnotallowable(&agreatstep)toinventtheundulatorythe-oryofLight–iehypotheticalundulationsinahypotheticalsubstancetheether.Andifthisbeso,whymayInotinventhypothesisofnaturalselec-tion(whichfromanalogyofdomesticproductions,&fromwhatweknowofthestruggleofexistence&ofthevariabilityoforganicbeings,isinsomeveryslightdegreeinitselfprobable)&trywhetherthishypothesisofnaturalselectiondoesnotexplain(asIthinkitdoes)alargenumberoffactsingeo-graphicaldistribution–geologicalsuccession–classification–morphology,embryology&c.&c.–Ishdreallymuchliketoknowwhysuchanhypothesisastheundulationoftheethermaybeinvented,&whyImaynotinvent(notthatIdidinventit,forIwasledtoitbystudyingdomesticvarieties)anyhy-pothesis,suchasnaturalselection....IcanperfectlyunderstandSedgwickoranyonesayingthatnat.selectiondoesnotexplainlargeclassesoffacts;butthatisverydifferentfromsayingthatIdepartfromrightprinciplesofscientificinvestigation.31Darwin’sargumentheremayseemquitestraightforward.Sedgwick,heassumes,acceptsthatthewavetheoryisbothgoodscienceandaninventedhypothesisnotaninductivetheory.SoDarwin’sowntheoryshouldnotbecondemnedtotallyforbeinglikewise.Itshouldbeassessed,notsolelyandadverselyforintroducinghypotheticalCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nVictorianphilosophyofscience185causes,but,rather,solelyonitsabilitytoexplainmanyfactsofmanykinds.Soread,Darwin’sresponseseemstoconcedethecorrectnessofSedgwick’sviewthathistheorywasnotinductivebuthypothetical,andtoresorttoretortingthat,nevertheless,assuchitcanbeofvalue,witnesstheunassailableprecedentfromthehigh-rankingscienceofoptics.However,thetwolongestparentheticalpassagesshowthisreadingtobemisleading.ForDarwinsaysthathishypothesisismadeinitselfslightlyprobableatleast,byanalogyandbytwobodiesofknowledgeaboutthestruggleforexistenceandthevariabilityoforganisms.Now,thisisprobablesupportindependentofexplanatoryvirtue.And,indeed,inDarwin’sOrigin,theexistenceofnaturalselectionanditsabilitytoproduceanddiversifyspeciesaregivenevidentialsupportintheearlychaptersbeforethetheoryisputtoexplanatoryworkinthelaterchapters.So,thetheoryisnotarguedforasonewouldargueforamerehypothesis,solelyonitsexplanatoryvirtue.Tothatextent,DarwinintheOriginandinthisletterisfarfromconcedingthathistheoryisnotinductivebuthypothetical.More-over,asthelaterparentheticalpassageshows,Darwinwasinsistentthatratherthaninventinghistheoryasonewouldhavetoinventahypothesis,hehadinfactbeenledtoitbycomparingtheoriginofspeciesinnaturewiththemakingbymanofdomesticatedracesofanimals.Notonly,then,couldhistheoryhavebeenreachedbyaninductiveratherthananinventiveprocess;ithadbeen.Someyearslater,DarwinincludedarevisedversionofhisreplytoSedgwickintheintroductiontohisVariationofAnimalsandPlantsunderDomestication(1868).Thisversionmayseemtoconcedeevenmorefullythathesawnaturalselectionashaving,likethewavethe-ory,onlythecredentialsofaninventedhypothesis.However,Darwinsaysonlythatitmaybelookeduponthatway,notthatitmustbeorthathehimselfviewsitso;and,again,heinsiststhathishypoth-esisismadeprobablebywhatispositivelyknownofthestruggleforexistenceanddomesticatedraces.Thatkindofprobablesupport,in-dependentofexplanatoryvirtue,was,again,whattraditionallymadeatheoryinductiveandsonotmerelyinventiveorhypothetical.Incontinuingtoinsistonthisclaim,Darwinwasreaffirminghiscon-victionthathehadalwaysalignedhistheorisingwiththeevidentialidealsforinductivesciencecodified,forhisgeneration,byHerschelandexemplifiedbyLyell.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n186davidl.hullviherschelontheoriginWhenweturntohowHerschel,WhewellandMillrespondedtotheOriginofSpecies,onefactbecomesespeciallynoteworthy–theysaidalmostnothingaboutitinprint.DuringthethirteenyearsaftertheappearanceoftheOrigin,HerschelsawfittoincludeasinglefootnotetohisPhysicalGeographyoftheGlobe,32whileWhewelladdedashortdiscussiontotheprefaceoftheseventheditionofhisAstronomyandGeneralPhysics.33Priortohisdeath,allMillpublishedwasafootnoteinhisSystemofLogic.34AfterhisdeaththereappearedashortdiscussionofevolutioninhisThreeEssaysonReligion.35Otherthanseveralparagraphsintheirprivatecorrespon-dence,thatwasit.Asfarasthethreemajorphilosophersofscienceatthetimeareconcerned,Darwin’smajorachievementwarrantedonlytwofootnotes,arevisedpreface,andashortdiscussioninaposthumouslypublishedwork.Darwin’sownexaminationoftheroleofphilosophyofscienceinthereceptionofhistheorywas,tothecontrary,agooddealmoreextensive.DarwinsentacopyoftheOrigintoHerschel,tosee‘whetherIproduceanyeffectonsuchamind’.36ItdidnottakelongforDarwintofindout.Inaroundaboutway,DarwinheardthatHerschelthoughtthathistheoryisthe‘lawofhiggledy-pigglety’.Darwinwenton:‘WhatthisexactlymeansIdonotknow,butitisevidentlyverycontemptuous.–Iftruethisis[a]greatblow&discouragement.’37ItwasagreatblowbothbecauseDarwinthoughtthathehadadheredtoHerschel’smethodsintheOriginandbecauseHerschel,asearlyas1837,couldbefoundsayingthattheintroductionofnewspeciesisa‘naturalincontradistinctiontoamiraculousprocess’.38InhisPhysicalGeographyoftheGlobe,Herschelrepeatedhisearlierviewsthatnewspeciesappeargraduallyina‘seriesofoverlappings,leavingthelastportionofeachinco-existencewiththeearliermembersofthenewerspecies’.39Inthe1861edition,Herschelappendedafootnotetothisdis-cussiononDarwin’stheory.InsteadofcommentingonDarwin’smethod,HerschelexpandedonhiscomplaintaboutDarwin’stheorybeingthelawofhiggledy-piggledy.AsonemightexpectfromhiscommentsinthefirstchapterofhisPreliminaryDiscourse,theproblemwas‘intelligentdesign’.OnDarwin’stheory,variationsoccurred‘inalldirections’,notjustinthosedirectionsthatmightCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nVictorianphilosophyofscience187helporganismscopebetterwiththeirchangingenvironments.AccordingtoHerschel:Wecannomoreaccepttheprincipleofarbitraryandcasualvariationandnaturalselectionasasufficientaccount,perse,ofthepastandpresentor-ganicworld,thanwecanreceivetheLaputanmethodofcomposingbooks(pushedal’outrance)asasufficientoneofShakespeareandthePrincipia.Equallyineithercase,anintelligence,guidedbyapurpose,mustbecon-tinuallyinactiontobiasthedirectionsofthestepsofchange–toregulatetheiramount–tolimittheirdivergence–andtocontinuetheminadefinitecourse.40OnethingthatDarwinhadlearnedfromHerschelisthatmenofsciencewerecommittedtodiscoveringsecondarylaws,notprimarylaws.DarwinacknowledgedthatGod,theprimarycause,maywellworkbymeansofsecondarylaws;buthedidnotseewhyhehadtoincludereferencetoGodinhisexplanationsofthesesecondarylaws,anymorethanastronomershadtoinexplaininghowtheplanetscir-clethesun.HerscheldidnotobjecttoDarwinintroducingsecondarylaws,buttothecharacterofthesecondarylawsheintroduced.ForDarwin,variationswereinnosensepreordained.Thefactthatanorganismmightneedaparticularvariationdidnotincreasethelike-lihoodthatitwouldgetthatvariation.Tomakemattersworse,selec-tionlookedequallyindifferenttothegoodofindividuals,includingpeople.Herschelhadwarnedthattoascendtothe‘originofthings,andspeculateonthecreation,isnotthebusinessofthenaturalphilosopher’.41Darwinhadmadenosuchascent.42Thefirstori-ginsoflifewerenotpartofhistheory.Indeed,heendedtheOriginwiththeclaimthatthereis‘grandeurinthisviewoflife,withitsseveralpowers,havingbeenoriginallybreathedintoafewformsorintoone’.43ButthissinglereferencetoGodwasnotgoodenoughforHerschel,especiallysincethelawsthatDarwinproposedgavenoindicationoftheCreator’sforesight.InHerschel’sview,Godmayactbysecondarylawstocreatenewspecies,butnotbyDarwin’ssecondarylaws:WedonotbelievethatMr.Darwinmeanstodenythenecessityofsuchintelligentdirection.Butitdoesnot,sofaraswecansee,enterintotheformulaofhislaw;andwithoutitweareunabletoconceivehowthelawcanhaveledtotheresults.Ontheotherhand,wedonotmeantodenythatsuchCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n188davidl.hullintelligencemayactaccordingtoalaw(thatistosay,onapreconceivedanddefiniteplan).Suchlaw,statedinwords,wouldbenootherthantheactualobservedlawoforganicsuccession;ormoregeneral,takingthatformwhenappliedtoourplanet,andincludingallthelinksofthechainwhichhaveappeared.Buttheonelawisanecessarysupplementtotheother,andought,inalllogicalpropriety,toformapartofitsenunciation.44Intheearlypartofhisfootnote,Herschelisworriedabouttheforcesthatproducetheevolutionofspecies.Theyneedtobeinsomesensedirected.Inthelaterpartheturnstothesequencesofspeciesthattheseforcesproduce.Theytoomustexhibitadirection,preferablyonethatleadsineluctablytothehumanspecies.AccordingtoHerschel,statementsofsuchsequencesarethemselveslawsofnature.Herschelthendrawshisfootnotetoaclosewiththefol-lowingobservation:‘Grantingthis,andwithsomedemurastothegenesisofman,wearefarfromdisposedtorepudiatetheviewtakenofthismysterioussubjectinMr.Darwin’swork.’45DarwinwasreassuredtosomeextentbyHerschel’sconcludingremarks.Afterall,itwouldtakeDarwin’smentor,CharlesLyell,almostadecadetogoasfar.Eventually,Darwinhimselfadmittedthatmy‘theologyisasimplemuddle;Icannotlookattheuniverseastheresultofblindchance,yetIcanseenoevidenceofbeneficentdesign,orindeedofdesignofanykind,inthedetails’.46Hehadearlierexhibitedevengreaterscepticism.47Onteleology,hewassidingwithBacon,whohadfamouslyremarkedthatenquiriesintofinalcauseswereasunproductiveasbarrenvirginsdedicatedtoGod.Bacon’snineteenth-centurydiscipleshadadifficulttimeworkingtheirwayaroundthisjudgementsince,asfarastheywereconcerned,Godwastheultimatefinalcause.48viiwhewellontheoriginWhentheOriginwaspublished,WhewellwasnolongeractiveindebatingthesortsofissuesthathediscussedinhisHistoryoftheInductiveSciences(1837)andThePhilosophyoftheInductiveSciences,FoundeduponTheirHistory(1840).Theonlyacknowl-edgementthatWhewellmadeinprintofDarwin’stheorywasintheprefaceoftheseventheditionofhisBridgewaterTreatiseonCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nVictorianphilosophyofscience189astronomyandphysics,publishedin1864.Inthispreface,WhewellcontrastedexplanationsoftheorganisationoflivingcreaturesintermsofdesignwiththeviewofDemocritusthattheseallcameintoexistencethroughthechanceencountersofatoms.Whewellaskedincredulouslywhethertherewere‘anypersonswho,inmoderntimes,assertthattheworldwasproducedbyafortuitousconcourseofatoms?’49ThoughDarwinwasnotmentionedbyname,Whewell’ssubsequentreferencesto‘recent’argumentsandhiscomparisonoftelescopestoeyesclearlyindicatedthatWhewellwastalkingaboutDarwin.50InthisprefaceWhewellspecifiedtwoobjectionstoDarwin’stheory:thatitshowedthemerepossibilityofimaginingthetransitionofoneorganintoanother,notthatsuchtransitionshadinfacttakenplace;andthattheamountoftimeneededforsuchtransitionswasnotshowntohavebeenavailable.Whysuchreticence?OneexplanationisthatWhewellhadalreadydiscussedalloftheseissuesatgreatlengthinhisdebateswithLyellandcouldseenoreasontorehearsethemonceagain.InanOctober1863lettertotheReverendD.Brown,Whewellstatedonceagainthatnoonehadbeenabletotraceallsequencesofspeciesbackintimetotheirfirstorigins.Hence,heconcluded,the‘absenceofanyconceivablenaturalbeginningleavesroomfor,andrequires,asuper-naturalorigin’.51Tothisobjection,WhewelladdedthatDarwincouldnotadduceasingleexampleofonespeciesevolvinginnatureintoanother.Norhadplantandanimalbreeders,throughalltheirefforts,succeededinproducingasinglenewspecies.Ifonetookthe‘witnessing’requirementoftheveracausaidealseriously,thenDarwinwaspotentiallyinrealtrouble.Hehadneverobservedonespeciesevolvingintoanother,norhadanyoneelse.Evenworse,iftheevolutionaryprocesswasasprotractedasDarwinthought,thennoonewouldeverwitnessonespeciesevolvingintoanother,andtheinductivefoundationsofhistheorywouldfor-everremaininsecure.Foravarietyofreasons,however,allthreeBritishphilosophers,andespeciallyWhewell,hadwatereddownthewitnessingrequirementconsiderably.Whewell’sresurrectingitinDarwin’scasemightbeputdowntohisgeneralanimosityto-wardstheideaofspeciesevolving.ButThomasHenryHuxleyhadnosuchanimosity,andhetooinsistedthat‘untilselectivebreed-ingisdefinitelyprovedtogiverisetovarietiesintersterilewithoneCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n190davidl.hullanother,thelogicalfoundationofthetheoryofnaturalselectionisincomplete’.52DarwinrespondedtoHuxleyonthispointthatwe‘differsomuchthatitisnousearguing’.53AlthoughWhewelldidnotsaysoinhisletter,hehadanaddi-tionalreasonforrejectingtheevolutionofspecies–onethatisabso-lutelyfundamentaltohistheoryofscience.AccordingtoWhewell,specieswere‘naturalclasses’,anda‘naturalclassisneithermorenorlessthantheobservedsteadyassociationofcertainproperties,struc-tures,andanalogies,inseveralspeciesandgenera’.54Theseweretheclassesconnectedingenerallaws.Theobjectoftheclassificatoryscienceswastodiscoverthenaturalclassesthatmaketheforma-tionofgenerallawspossible.55Whewellwaswillingtocountenancethesupernaturalsuspensionoflawsofnatureateachgeologicalperiodwhennewspecieswereintroduced.Buthewasnotwillingtohavelawsthemselveschangethroughtime.Perhapstheymightvaryintheirintensity;butthatwouldnotbringtheirpermanenceintoquestion.56FromWhewell’spointofview,ifspeciesevolved,withonespecieschanginggraduallyintoanother,thenitfollowedthatthelawsofnaturethemselveswereevolving.ThatwasapropositionWhewelljustcouldnotaccept.57Hecouldnotconceiveagreaterviolationoftheknownlawsofnaturethannewspeciesappearinginsucces-sivegeologicalstrata.Butsincenewspeciesdidappearinsucces-sivestrata,Whewellconcluded,acreativeagencyhadtobeperpet-uallyatworkbringingnewspeciesintoexistenceasoldoneswentextinct.58viiimillontheoriginThefinalmemberofthisBritishtriumvirateofphilosopherswasMill,and,accordingtopopularconception,healonesawthetruevalueofDarwin’stheory.InlatereditionsofhisSystemofLogic,Millintroducedalongfootnoteinwhichhediscussed‘Mr.Darwin’sremarkablespeculation’.59ThisfootnoteoccurredinMill’sdiscus-sionofthemethodofhypothesis.ContrarytowhatNewtonseemedtobesayingwhenheproclaimed‘Hypothesesnonfingo’,Millarguedthathypothesesplayacentralroleintheprocessofdiscovery.Forex-ample,inMill’sview,Descartes’hypothesisedvorticeswouldhavebeenlegitimateifheorhisfollowershadbeenabletobringthemtoCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nVictorianphilosophyofscience191thetestofobservation,asadvocatesoftheundulatorytheoryoflighthadbeenabletodo.Millbeganhisfamousfootnotebylistingadditionalexamplesofhypothesesthatwerelegitimatewhentheywerefirstintroduced,re-gardlessofwhethertheyturnedouttobetrueorfalse:Broussais’mis-takenhypothesisthateverydiseaseoriginatesinsomeonepartoftheorganism;thedoctrinethattheearthisanaturalmagnet;theclaimthatthebrainisavoltaicpile;andthephrenologists’viewthatthevariousmentalfunctionswerelocalisedindifferentregionsonthesurfaceofthebrain.Milllaudedthefirstthreehypothesesbecausetheyweresetoutinwaysthattheycouldbetested.Inthecaseofthephrenologists,Millargued,testinghadthusfarturnedouttobebeyondthem.Nevertheless,forMill,allfouroftheseusesofthemethodofhypothesiswerelegitimate.MillthenturnedtoDarwin:Mr.Darwin’sremarkablespeculationontheOriginofSpeciesisanotherunimpeachableexampleofalegitimatehypothesis.Whatheterms‘naturalselection’isnotonlyaveracausa,butoneprovedtobecapableofproducingeffectsofthesamekindwiththosewhichthehypothesisascribestoit:thequestionofpossibilityisentirelyoneofdegree.ItisunreasonabletoaccuseMr.Darwin(ashasbeendone)ofviolatingtherulesofInduction.Therulesofinductionareconcernedwiththeconditionsofproof.Mr.Darwinhasneverpretendedthathisdoctrinewasproved.HewasnotboundbytherulesofInduction,butbythoseofHypothesis.Andtheselasthaveseldombeenmorecompletelyfulfilled.Hehasopenedapathofenquiryfullofpromise,theresultsofwhichnonecanforesee.Andisitnotawonderfulfeatofscientificknowledgeandingenuitytohaverenderedsoboldasuggestion,whichthefirstimpulseofeveryonewastorejectatonce,admissibleanddiscussible,evenasaconjecture?60Darwin’sallieshadearlierbeenlookingtoMillforsupport.61How-ever,MillisplainlysayingherethatwhileDarwin’stheoryisfineasahypothesis,hisevidencegoesnowaytowardsinductiveproof.Millgrantsthatnaturalselectionisshowntobeaveracausa,meaningherepresumablyanexisting,areal,notfictionalcausalprocess.Moreover,hethinksitisprovedcapableofthesamekindofeffectsthatDarwinascribestoit,althoughnoteffectsofthesamedegree;meaning,apparently,thatitisprovedcapableofproducingintraspe-cificadaptivedivergencesbutnotthelarger,interspecificdiversi-ficationsthatDarwinwouldinvokeittoexplain.Thisquestionofdegreeisleftopen.So,bycontrastwithDarwin’sownclaimsCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n192davidl.hullforhistheory,Mill’sjudgementhereisfarfromfavourable,treatingitasanexampleofthemethodofhypothesis,aspartofthelogicofdiscovery,notoffinalproof.Darwinhadputforthapromisinghy-pothesis,butalloftheeffortsthatheandhisfellowDarwinianshadexercisedtotestthetheorywereinsufficientforanythingthatmightbetermedproof.Newtonhadprovedhistheory,Keplerhadprovedhislaws,advocatesoftheundulatorytheoryoflightwereclosetoprovingtheirtheory,butDarwinandhisfollowershadnotprovidedanyproofatallforevolutionarytheory.Priortohisdeathin1873,Millmadehisnegativeevaluationmoreemphatic.InhisThreeEssaysonReligion,publishedin1874,hear-guedthatinthefourteenyearssinceDarwinpublishedtheOrigintheweightofevidencestillremainedonthesideofintelligentde-sign.Takingtheexampleoftheeye,Millupheldthetraditionalviewthat,sincesightissubsequenttotheputtingtogetherofthestruc-turesoftheeye,thefactofsightcannotserveasanefficientcauseofthosestructures.62Instead,somethingelsemustfunctionastheefficientcauseoftheeye;andthemostlikelycandidateforMillwas‘intelligentwill’.Hecontinued:Iregrettosay,however,thatthislatterhalfoftheargumentisnotsoin-expugnableastheformerhalf.Creativeforethoughtisnotabsolutelytheonlylinkbywhichtheoriginofthewonderfulmechanismoftheeyemaybeconnectedwiththefactofsight.Thereisanotherconnectinglinkonwhichattentionhasbeengreatlyfixedbyrecentspeculations,andthereal-ityofwhichcannotbecalledintoquestion,thoughitsadequacytoaccountforsuchtrulyadmirablecombinationsassomeofthoseinNature,isstillandwillprobablylongremainproblematical.Thisistheprincipleof‘thesurvivalofthefittest’.63Millthenconcludedthatthe‘adaptationsinNatureaffordalargebalanceofprobabilityinfavourofcreationbyintelligence’.64Insum,bothHerschelandMillpublishedfootnotesinlateredi-tionsoftheirrespectiveworksthatappearedtotheirreadersaspro-vidingequivocal,hesitantsupportforDarwin’stheoryofevolutionasan‘hypothesis’or‘speculation’,whileWhewellcameoutsolidlyagainstDarwin.BythetimeMilldied,hisdoubtsabouttheade-quacyofnaturalselectionwhencomparedtocreativeintelligencehadifanythingintensified.Whatismostdamning,however,ishowCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nVictorianphilosophyofscience193littlethesephilosophershadtosayinprintaboutoneofthemostimportanttheoriesinWesternscience–ahalfdozenorsoprintedpages,thatisall.ixthenextgenerationAgenerationlaterthesceneseemstohavechangedradically.SuchphilosophersasChaunceyWright,WilliamStanleyJevonsandCharlesSaundersPeircenotonlyclaimedtoacceptDarwin’stheorybutalsovoicedapprovalofhismethodology.InthecaseofWright,theseclaimswerewellfounded.WrightbothunderstoodDarwin’stheoryandacceptedit.Darwinwentsofarastofinancethepub-licationofapamphletbytheyoungAmericandefendingDarwinandhistheory.65Moreimportantly,WrightusedDarwin’stheoryinresearch,observing,moreover,thata‘theorywhichisutilizedre-ceivesthehighestpossiblecertificateoftruth’.66AtatimewhentheviewsofHerbertSpencerhadsurpassedthoseofDarwininpop-ularity,WrightsawamarkeddifferencebetweenthemethodsthatDarwinusedandthoseofSpencer.ForWright,Darwin’smethodsweregenuinelyscientific;Spencer’swerenot.67TheEnglishlogicianandeconomistJevonschampionedevolu-tionarytheorywithlittleinthewayofreservations.68Thethe-oryofevolutionhechampioned,however,hadalotmoretodowithSpencerthanwithDarwin.AlthoughJevonsdefendedDarwin’smethodology,findingitperfectlyacceptable,Darwintooklittlecom-fortfromthissupport,becauseJevonsdefendedSpencer’smethodol-ogyaswell.Darwinthoughtthelatterwasmore‘philosophy’thanscience.NordidDarwin’stheoryplayallthatmuchofaroleinJevons’ownresearch.Nevertheless,Jevonsdidacknowledgethattraditionalprinciplesofclassificationasexplicatedbygenerationsoflogicianswereincompatiblewithgenealogicalclassifications.69AlongwithhisdebatingpartnersWrightandWilliamJames,PeircetodayisregardedasoneofthefoundersofAmericanprag-matism.HewasinitiallyimpressedbyDarwin’stheory,findingitalegitimateapplicationofstatisticalmethodstobiology,atatimewhenstatisticswasrapidlycomingintoitsown.AsWrighthadar-gued,althoughDarwincouldnotsaywhatwouldhappeninanyonecase,heshowedthat,inthestatisticallongrun,organismswouldCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n194davidl.hullbecomeadaptedtotheirenvironment.70PeircecontrastedDarwin’smethodologywiththatofSpencer,findingSpencermuchmore‘philosophical’thanDarwin.BeingphilosophicalwasnobadthingforPeirce,andhepreferredSpencer’sviewstothoseofDarwin.More-over,accordingtoPeirce,evolutionwasnotgradual,butinvolvedaseriesofminorcatastrophes.Thosespeciesthatwereabletochangemostrapidlysurvivedtoreproduce.Healsonoted,asWhewellhaddonebeforehim,thattheideaofspeciesevolvingimpliedthatlawsofnaturethemselveschangethroughtime.Whewellrejectedtheevolu-tionofspeciesonthataccount.Peirce,onthecontrary,embracedtheevolutionoflawsinhisgrandcosmictheoryofEvolutionaryLove.71TotheextentthatPeircefosteredtheacceptanceofanytheoryofevolution,itwasnotDarwin’stheory.Yetagain,oneseesaphiloso-phernotsimplyacceptingDarwin’stheoryasDarwinhimselfmighthavehoped,butadaptingittonewandspecificpurposes.Notthatthisphenomenonshouldsurpriseus;thosewhoproduceargumentsveryrarelysucceedincontrollingwhatothersdowiththoseargu-ments.notes1.Sedgwick[1860]1973,160.2.ForthedevelopmentofDarwin’stheory,seeRuse1975,2000c;Hodge2000;HodgeandWaters,thisvolume.Hull1973containsalargenum-berofreviewsoftheOrigin.Forothertreatmentsofthetopicsinthischapter,see,e.g.,Hull1995andEllegard[˚1958]1990,ch.9.3.Buchwald1993,205.4.Forfurtherdiscussionofthecontroversyoverthewavetheoryoflight,seeAchinstein1993;Buchwald1993;L.Laudan1993;and,moregener-ally,SchusterandYeo1986.5.Bacon[1620]1960,i,97,aphorismciii.6.Herschel[1830]1987,104.7.Herschel[1830]1987,174.8.Herschel[1830]1987,164.9.Whewell1831,381.10.Mill[1843]1973,viii,871;alsoin8thedn,1872,568–9.11.Whewell1831,391.12.Mill[1843]1973,vii,492;alsoin8thedn,1872,323.13.Herschel1841,193.14.Mill[1843]1973,vii,284;alsoin8thedn,1872,186.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nVictorianphilosophyofscience19515.Mill[1843]1973,vii,203;alsoin8thedn,1872,133.16.OnMill’sinductivistphilosophyofscience,seeScarre1998.17.Herschel[1830]1987,144.18.Herschel[1830]1987,80.19.OnWhewellmoregenerally,FischandSchaffer1991,Yeo1993andSnyder2006.20.Whewell1849,64.21.Whewell1840,ii,447.22.Whewell1831,395.23.Whewell1840,116.24.Herschel[1830]1987,9and7.25.Hodge2000.26.DarwintoC.J.F.Bunbury,9February1860,inBurkhardtetal.1985–2001,Correspondenceviii,76(hereafterCCD).27.Ontheanalogybetweenartificialselectionandnaturalselection,seeWaters1986;Sterrett2002;Waters,thisvolume;andtheIntroductiontothisvolume.28.Forthelongerwork,seeC.Darwin1975.29.L.Laudan1981,chs.8and10.30.ThewidespreadbeliefthattraditionalLinnaeanclassificationsexhibitastructurethatcanbeeasilyadaptedtoreflectthesuccessivebranchingsofphylogenetictreesturnsouttobeanillusion.SeeHull1964,1979.31.DarwintoJ.S.Henslow,8May1860,inCCDviii,195.32.Herschel1861,12.33.Whewell1864.34.Mill1872,328.Thisfootnotefirstappearedinthebook’sfifthedition,publishedin1862.SeeCCDix,205.35.Mill1874.36.DarwintoCharlesLyell,23November1859,inCCDvii,392.37.DarwintoCharlesLyell,10December1859,inCCDvii,423.38.Babbage1837,204.SeealsotheletterfromDarwintoBadenPowell,19January1860,inCCDviii,41,andtheremarksinthesamevolume,575.39.Herschel1861,11–12.40.Herschel1861,12.41.Herschel[1830]1987,38.42.C.Darwin[1859]1964,490.43.C.Darwin[1859]1964,490.44.Herschel1861,12.45.Herschel1861,12.46.DarwintoJosephHooker,12July1870,inF.DarwinandSeward1903,i,321.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n196davidl.hull47.DarwintoAsaGray,5June1861,inCCDix,162;DarwintoCharlesLyell,1August1861,inCCDix,226.48.Hull1973,55–66.49.Whewell1864,xv.50.Cf.C.Darwin[1859]1964,137,188.51.WhewelltoD.Brown,26October1863,inTodhunter1876,ii,433–4.52.T.H.Huxley1896,vi.53.DarwintoT.H.Huxley,28December1862,inCCDx,633.54.Whewell1831,392.55.Whewell1831,392.56.Whewell1835,448.57.Hodge1991a,275.58.Whewell1853,92.59.Mill1872,327.ForfurtherdiscussionofMillonDarwin,seeHull2000.60.Mill1872,328.61.LettersfromDarwintoT.H.Huxley,5December1860,inCCDviii,514,andtoHenryFawcett,16July1861,inCCDix,204.SeealsoMinekaandLindley1972,xiv,695,1505,1553.62.Mill1874,172.63.Mill1874,172.64.Mill1874,174.65.C.Wright1871.66.Madden1963,78.67.C.Wright1865.ArecentcollectionofwritingsbyandaboutWrightisC.Wright2000.68.Jevons1874.69.Jevons1869,231.70.C.Wright1871.71.OnPeirce’s‘universeofchance’,seeHacking1990,ch.23.SeealsoReynolds2002.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\njohnhedleybrooke8DarwinandVictorianChristianityithedarwinianchallengeDuringhisCambridgeyears,DarwinwaspreparingtobecomeapriestintheAnglicanChurch.Laterinlifehesawtheirony:‘Con-sideringhowfiercelyIhavebeenattackedbytheorthodoxitseemsludicrousthatIonceintendedtobeaclergyman.’1Whyhewasat-tackedbytheorthodoxhasneverbeendifficulttoexplain.Offer-inganaturalisticaccountoftheemergenceofhumanbeingsfromape-likeancestors,Darwinoffendedreligioussensibilitiesaswellascommonsentiment.Histheoryofevolutionbynaturalselectionre-inforceddoubtsaboutbiblicalauthorityataparticularlysensitivetime.Itcouldeasilybeinterpretedasanaffronttohumandignityanditcalledforaseriousre-thinking–notnecessarilyarejection–oftraditionalChristiandoctrines.DespitefrictionbetweencompetingChristiantraditions,andde-spitepoliticaltensionsinEnglandbetweentheestablishedAnglicanChurchandsociallydisadvantageddissenters,therewerefeaturesofaChristiancreedthattranscendedpartylines.Thesewerebeliefinanall-powerful,mercifulGodonwhomtheworlddependedforitscreationandcontinuedexistence.HumankindhadbeenmadeinGod’simageandhadbeengrantedtheprivilegeoffreewill.Theprivi-legeextendedtodominionover,andresponsibilityfor,therestofcre-ation.TheChristianGodwasanactive,livingGod,towhomprayersweredirectedandwhoseprovidencewasnotconfinedtoanoriginalcreativeact.CentraltomostChristianbeliefwasthedoctrinethathumannaturehadbeentaintedthroughAdam’sdisobedienceandthatinthelifeofJesusChristwasaspecialrevelationofthena-tureofGod.Christwasenvisagedasbothhumananddivine,asthe197CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n198johnhedleybrookeMessiahwhosecominghadbeenprophesiedintheHebrewScrip-tures.InevangelicalpreachingfamiliartoDarwin,Christ’sdeathwasanatonementforhumansin,hisresurrectionasourceofhopeforallwhotrustedinhisteaching,loveandforgiveness.MostVictorianintellectualswerenottakingtheGenesiscreationnarrativesliterally.Advancesintheunderstandingofbothearthhis-toryandtheBiblehadalreadycalledforsymbolicreadingsoftheGenesis‘days’.2Therewereevenancientprecedentsfornon-literalreadingsofScripture.Augustinehadwarnedagainsttakingthe‘days’ofcreationliterally.Nevertheless,amongunsophisticatedreligiousfolk,Darwinwasoftenseenasthreateningasacredtext.3Tomakemattersworse,thehistoricalnatureofthecreationnar-rativesentailedothertheologicalissues,suchastheconsequencesofAdam’s‘fall’andthebiblicaldescriptionofJesusChristasthe‘sec-ondAdam’atoningforthesinsofthefirst.HadDarwinnotshownthatmanhadrisen,notfallen?Andwhatofdivineactivityintheworld?EvenamongDarwin’speersweresomewhobelievedthattheoriginofhumanbeingswouldremainbeyondthelimitsofscience.4Darwin’scontraryviewchallengedthepicture,familiarfromMilton’sParadiseLost,ofaCreatorwhomiraculouslyconjurednewspeciesintoexistence.Darwindidnotcloseallthegaps.UnlikeRobertChambers,theanonymousauthorofVestigesoftheNaturalHistoryofCreation(1844),Darwinwiselyrefrainedfromspeculat-inghowthefirstfewlivingformshadoriginated.Nordidheclaimanyinsightintohowtheearth,muchlessthesolarsystemandleastofalltheentireuniverseitselfhadcomeintobeing.Nevertheless,hisaccountofspeciesformationasresultingfromthegradualac-cumulationofminormodificationswasembarrassingforthosewhohabituallyfoundsolaceintheinexplicable.Darwinremovedmuchofthemysteryfromwhat,followingJohnHerschel,hecalledthe‘mysteryofmysteries’,theoriginofnewspecies.Thereweredeeperquestions,too.Whatdiditmeanforhuman-kindtobemadeintheimageofGodifwesharedancestorswithotherprimates?Hadthehuman‘soul’beenaddedduringtheevolution-aryprocess,orwasitmoreappropriatetospeakofourbeingsoulsratherthanhavingthem?Whatwastheultimategroundofmoralvaluesiftheevolutionofthemoralsensecouldbeexplainedsimplyintermsofsurvivalvalue,withoutreferencetothetranscendent?WhenDarwinwrotehisDescentofMan(1871)hedidnotintendtoCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinandVictorianChristianity199proclaimtherelativityofmoralvalues.Hewantedtoexplainhowthehighestformofmoralsensibility(thatweshouldbehavetoothersaswewouldhavethembehavetowardsus)haddevelopednaturally.Butitwaseasytoreadhistheoryasdisruptiveofmoralresponsi-bilityand,byimplication,ofthestabilityofsociety.Putcrudely,ifmenandwomenweretoldthattheywereessentiallynodifferentfromanimals,wouldtheynotstartbehavinglikethem?Thatwasacommonfear,hardlydiminishedbyreferencestoa‘struggleforexis-tence’thatcouldeasilybetranslatedintoaggressiveindividualism.WithintheChristiantraditions,mightwasnotsupposedtoberight.Itwasthemeekwhowouldinherittheearth.Darwin’semphasisoncontinuitybetweenHomosapiensandape-likeancestorscouldbeoffensiveeventothosewithoutChristianconvictions.Cartoonistshadafieldday.Apesintheircagesallegedlyenquiredwhethertheyweretheirkeeper’sbrother.Monkeyswerede-pictedwiththeirtailsabouttobeshorn:‘cutitoffshort’,saysone,‘Ican’taffordtoawaitdevelopmentsbeforeIcantakemyproperposi-tioninSociety.’Darwincameclosetosayingthatthosewhoopposedhistheorybysnarlingandbaringtheirteethonlyconfirmedtherebytheircanineorigins.Underlyingthejokesweremattersofdeadlyearnest.Victorianpruderyandanimallewdnesswerenotthebestofbedfellows.Buttherewasmoretoitthanthat.IfChristiancommen-tatorswerenotamused,itwasbecausetheysawthenewtheoryasapowerfultoolforthosewishingtowrestcontrolofeducationfromreligiousinstitutions.Asifthiswerenotenough,Darwinismchallengednaturalthe-ology–theattempttoinfertheexistenceandattributesofadeity,independentlyofrevelation.InEnglandespecially,confidencehadoftenbeenplacedinargumentsfordesign,comparingintricateor-ganicstructuresandtheirmarvellousadaptivefunctionswiththeworkofhumanartisans,asinthedesignofmagnificentclocks.SuchanalogiespointedtothewisdomandpowerofGod,therefinementofwhosecreaturesfartranscendedanythingmeremortalscouldmake.5TheinferencetoaDesignerwasnotpeculiartoChristiantraditions.ItappearedinantiquityandwassometimesembracedbycriticsofChristianityintheirquestforanalternativeand,intheirestimation,morerationalreligion.Thisargumentfordesignhadoftenincorporatedthelatestscienceandhadbeenreinforcedbyit.InthesecondhalfoftheseventeenthCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n200johnhedleybrookecenturythemicroscopehaddisclosedanewworldofgreatbeautyandprecisioninminuteorganicstructures.ForRobertBoylethewaytheCreatorhadpackedlifeintothemerestmitewasaweinspiring.Thephysicalscienceshadalsotestifiedtodivineprecision–intheexquisitecalculationsmadebyIsaacNewton’sGodtoensurethattheplanetshadgoneintostableorbits.Becausethescienceshadsooftensupportedreligiousbelief,theDarwinianchallengewaspartic-ularlypoignant.Darwinneverdeniedtheappearanceofdesigninthewonderfuladaptationshestudied;buthiscausalprocessofnaturalselectionenabledonetosee,almostasinaconversionexperience,hownaturecouldcounterfeitdesign.ForthePrincetontheologianCharlesHodgetheconclusionwasinescapable.InhisbookWhatisDarwinism?(1874)Hodgedidnotregardtheideaofevolutionasnecessarilyatheistic.NordidheaccuseDarwinhimselfofatheism.But,forHodge,Darwin’stheoryofevolutionbynaturalselection,throughitsemasculationofdesign,amountedtoatheism.Tocompoundtheproblem,Darwin’semphasisondivergentlinesofevolutionfromcommonancestors,representedbytheimageofabranchingtreeorbranchingcoral,madeitdifficulttobelieveintheunfoldingofadivineplan.TheonlydiagramintheOriginofSpeciesdepictedthisrepeatedforkingandbranching,enablingDarwinianswithatheisticleaningstosaythatwearetheproductofaprocessthatneverhadusinmind.6Addtothistheaccidentalfeaturesoftheevolutionaryprocess,forexamplethedemiseofthedinosaursmak-ingourownevolutionpossible,andthefullforceoftheDarwinianchallengecanthenbeappreciated.7GiventhewidespreaduseofDarwinisminsecularcritiquesofre-ligion,itisnotsurprisingthatsomeChristiansfeelthreatenedbyit.Historically,however,therelationsbetweenDarwinismandChris-tianityhavebeenmorediversethantheideaofcontinuousconflictwouldsuggest.Thereisaricher,morefascinatingstorytobetold.Darwinhimselfbeganasareformer,notadestroyerofnaturalthe-ology.Hisbiographyisrevealingbecausehiseventualagnosticismwasnotsimplyaresultofhisscience.FamilytragedycrushedhisfaithasdidmoralobjectionstocertainChristiandoctrines.Exam-iningreligiousresponsestohistheoryinVictorianEnglandweshallfindthattheyweresometimessurprisinglypositive.Manydidseeoppositionbetweenevolutionandcreation;butitwasalsopossibletoseeevolutionasGod’smethodofcreation.ThevarietyofresponseCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinandVictorianChristianity201raisesimportantquestionsaboutthemodelsweusetodescribetherelationsbetweenscience,religionandmodernity.Thesewillbedis-cussedintheclosingsection.iidarwinandnaturaltheologyWithinChristianity,knowledgeofGodwasderivedfromtwoprinci-palsources:revelation,whichmightincludeformsofreligiousexpe-rience,andnaturalreason.Thepreciserelationshipbetweenthetwohadoftenbeencontroversial.Eighteenth-centurycriticsofChris-tianityhadarguedthatknowledgeofthedeityderivedfromreasonwasmorereliablethanthatbasedontheScripturesoronChurchtradition.ForChristianwritersatheologybasedonreasonalonewouldalwaysbedeficientbecauseitcouldnevershowthatGodhadenteredintoaspecialcovenantwithhumankind.Nevertheless,naturaltheologydidhaveaplaceindefendingthefaith,providingargumentsagainstatheismandforanimmortalsoul.Informallyithelpedtoreinforcebeliefbyevokingasenseofaweatthewondersofthenaturalworld.InWilliamPaley’spopularNaturalTheology(1802),itwasarguedthatrationalproofofadeitywasafirststeptowardsbelievingthat,fromthesamedeity,arevelationmightbeexpected.TheDarwinianchallengetonaturaltheologywasexpressedbyDarwinhimself:‘theoldargumentfromdesigninnature,asgivenbyPaley,whichformerlyseemedtomesoconclusive,fails,nowthatthelawofnaturalselectionhasbeendiscovered’.8ThecontrastissuchthatitcanbeaprofoundexistentialexperiencewhenonefirstseestheworldnotasPaleysawitbutthroughtheeyesofDarwin.God’swell-adaptedcreaturessuddenlybecomenature’sproductsthathappentobethesurvivorsofalong,tortuous,bloodstainedpro-cess.ForDarwinhimselfthesheervolumeofextinctionwasstag-gering;andifonehadnotbeenstaggeredonehadnotunderstoodthetheory.9Hadnaturaltheologybeencompletelysterile;hadDarwinlearnednothingfromit?Opinionisdividedonthisquestion;buttherecer-tainlyexistsarevisionistliteratureinwhichDarwin’sdebttonaturaltheologyisexplored.10ThroughreadingPaley,Darwinbecamefas-cinatedbytheintricateadaptationshewouldeventuallyascribetonaturalselection.IthasbeenclaimedthattheonlyuniverseinwhichCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n202johnhedleybrookenaturalselectioncouldworkwastheuniverseDarwininheritedandthenstolefromthenaturaltheologians.11EvenhisdebttoMalthus’argumentthat,intheabsenceofchecks,populationgrowthwouldtendtooutstripfoodsupply,wasadebttoaworkofnaturaltheol-ogy;forMalthushadbeendefendingaGod-givennaturalorderwithinwhichsecularhopesofasocialutopiawerepurelyvisionary.12ForMalthusthelawsofnatureweredesignedtopromotetheChristianvirtuesofdiligence,industryandsexualabstinenceuntilonecouldaffordmarriageandafamily.HisfamousessayonpopulationfocusedDarwin’smindonastruggleforsurvivalthroughoutnature.13OpinionsdifferontheextentofDarwin’sdebttonaturaltheologybecausetwocontrastingviewshaveemergedconcerninghisintel-lectualformation.InthefirstheisapeculiarlyEnglishreformerofthelanguageofdesignthathehadencounteredinPaley.InthesecondheisaRomanticnaturalist,excitedbythetravelsofAlexan-dervonHumboldt,eagertoexperiencethefloraandfaunaofex-oticlandscapes.OnthefirstviewthereformthatDarwinfavouredwasthatoftheastronomerJohnHerschelandadoptedinpartbythephilosopherWilliamWhewell.Theiremphasisfellonbenefi-centlawsofnatureratherthandivineintervention.InWhewell’sac-count,designwasvisibleinpropitiouscombinationsoflawsratherthaninanthropomorphicimagesofcontrivance.14Darwinlookstobejustsuchareformerofnaturaltheologyinthe1830s.Anote-bookentryreads:‘theCreatorcreatesbylaws’.Darwinsupposedthatthe‘endofformationofspecies&genera,isprobablytoaddtoquantumoflifepossiblewithcertainpreexistinglaws’.Healsoreferredto‘lawsofharmony’inthesystem.15Designwastobeseeninprovidentialcombinationsoflawsratherthaninspecificorganicstructures.Inthealternativeview,wheretheyoungDarwinisrecastasaRomanticnaturalist,heisentrancednotsomuchbyPaley’smecha-nisticanatomyasbyanemotiveresponsetothebeautiesofnature,enticedbythevisionoftropicalrainforests,intoxicatedbywhathereadsofHumboldt’stravels,desolatedwhenhisshipcouldnotlandonTenerife.16Thiswastheyoungmanwhowouldeventuallybreathetheword‘hosannah’whenfinallyexperiencingtheBrazilianjungleforhimself:‘Twinersentwiningtwiners,tresseslikehair–beautifullepidoptera–Silence,hosannah.’17OnthisinterpretationtheyoungDarwinfoundGodinnatureratherthandeducedGod’sCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinandVictorianChristianity203existencefromit.Onneitherviewwasnaturebereftofreligiousmeaning.Darwin’sreferenceto‘ends’increationsuggeststhatatthetimehistheorytookshapehewasnoterasingdivinepurposes.InanearlySketchofhistheory(1842)thedivinelawsleadingto‘death,famine,rapine,andtheconcealedwarofnature’werejustifiedbecausetheyproduced‘thehighestgood,whichwecanconceive,thecreationofthehigheranimals’.18Therewereevenhintsofatheodicy–anat-tempttorationalisetheexistenceofpain,sufferingandtheuglierfea-turesofcreation.MightsomethingbegainedbyhavingtheCreatorcreatethroughintermediateprocesses?ThedeitywouldnotthenbedirectlyresponsibleforwhatDarwincalleda‘longsuccessionofvilemolluscousanimals’.Fromthisperspective,itwasseparatecreationthathedeemed‘beneaththedignityofhim,whoissupposedtohavesaidlettherebelightandtherewaslight’.TodenythatGodwascapableofproducing‘everyeffectofeverykind’through‘hismostmagnificentlaws’Darwindescribed,instronglanguage,asanactofprofanity.19SeeingDarwinasareformerofnaturaltheologymayhelpusun-derstandcertainconstraintsonhistheoryofnaturalselection.Ifthelawsofnaturewereofdivineorigin,onemightexpecttheim-provementoforganicformstoreachsuchlevelsofperfectionthatacontinuousactionofnaturalselectionwouldcease.Ifenvironmen-talchangessubsequentlyproducednewpressures,then(andonlythen)wouldnaturalselectioncutinagain.IthasbeenarguedthatsuchaconstraintonthecontinuousactionofnaturalselectionwasnotlifteduntilDarwinbegantothinkintermsofrelativeratherthanabsoluteorperfectadaptation.20Darwinadmittedthatotherlegaciesfromnaturaltheologyhadalsoshapedhisthinking.InhisDescentofMantherewasafrankconfession:‘Ihadnotformerlysufficientlyconsideredtheexistenceofmanystructures’whichare‘neitherbeneficialnorinjurious;andthisIbelievetobeoneofthegreatestoversightsasyetdetectedinmywork’.Whatreasondidhegiveforthisoversight?‘Iwasnotabletoannultheinfluenceofmyformerbelief,thenwidelyprevalent,thateachspecieshadbeenpur-poselycreated;andthisledtomytacitlyassumingthateverydetailofstructure,exceptingrudiments,wasofsomespecial,thoughun-recognised,service.’21Darwincorrectshisformerself,andwemayrecognisebothDarwinsincurrentevolutionarydebates.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n204johnhedleybrookeiiidarwin’sreligiousodysseyWhatwereDarwin’sprivatereligiousbeliefsandhowdidtheychange?ApossibleendingofthestoryiscontainedinaletterfromJuliaWedgwoodtoDarwin’ssonFrank:‘EveryonewhofeelsReligioninfinitelythemostimportantsubjectofhumanattentionwouldbeawareofacertainhostilitytowardsitin[yourfather’s]attitude,sofarasitwasrevealedinprivatelife.’Shecontinuedwiththearrestingremarkthathefelthewasconfrontingsomeinfluencethatadulter-atedtheevidenceoffact.22ThestrengthofthisremarksuggeststhatinthecourseofhisspiritualtrajectoryDarwinhadreachedsomeconclusionshewasunlikelytorenounce.Thestandardviewisofaneatlinearprogression:fromhisearlyChristianity,inwhichhewouldastonishmembersoftheBeaglecrewbyquotingtheBibletosettleapointofmorality,toadeisticpositionwhenhewrotetheOrigin,tohislateragnosticism.23Thisisanattractiveformulabecauseofanotherseeminglyirreversibleprocessatwork:thelossofanaestheticsensibilitythatDarwincon-fessedhadbeen‘intimatelyconnected’withhisbeliefinadeity.24Suchaneatprogressionalsoharmoniseswithstandardmodelsofsecularisation.However,ithasbecomelessclearthatDarwincanbepigeon-holedateachstageofhisintellectualdevelopment.Onreflectionitwouldbesurprisingifthemanwhoshowedusthatwecannotpigeon-holepigeonscouldbepigeon-holedhimself.Hespokeoffluctuationsofbelief.25Thematerialismwithwhichheflirtedinthelate1830s,evenifsustained,maynothaveprecludedaChristiansensibilityofsorts.TherewerecertainlymonisticmodelsofmindandbodywithinUnitarianism–thattraditionwithinChristianity,exemplifiedbyJosephPriestley,whichdeniestheorthodoxdoctrinethatChristisasdivineasGod.26Muchlater,whenDarwinpreferredtothinkofhimselfasanagnostic,hestillinsistedthatthereweredaysonwhichhedeservedtobecalledatheist.27Evenhisatro-phiedsensibilitieswereperhapsnotasdeadenedinlaterlifeashepretended.28ConsequentlywemayneedtoreviseourunderstandingofDarwin’slossoffaith.Thereweremanyculturalresourcesonwhichhecouldhavedrawnforhiseventualagnosticism.TheseincludedthescepticismofDavidHumeandthepositivismofAugusteComte.29WehavelongknownofhisearlydoubtsaboutsacredtextsandhowCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinandVictorianChristianity205ontheBeaglevoyagehecametodoubtwhetheranintuitivesenseofGodwasauniversalhumancharacteristic.Hiscousin,HensleighWedgwood,triedtopersuadehimthatthisinnatesenseofGoddif-ferentiatedusfromtheanimals.Darwindisagreed.OnhisvoyagehehaddiscoveredthatasenseofGodwasnotpronouncedinaFuegianorinanAustralian.30AradicalhypothesiswouldbethatDarwin’slossoffaithhadlit-tleornothingtodowithhisscience.Thiswouldbetogotoofar.Darwinemphaticallydidmakeconnectionsbetweenscientificandotherreasonsforhisreligiousdoubts.Extendingthedomainofnat-urallawdidmakemiraclesmoreincredible.31TheextentofhumansufferingthreatenedbeliefinabeneficentGodbutwasconsonantwithhistheoryofnaturalselection.32Randomnessintheproduc-tionofvariationwasdifficulttosquarewithdivinecontrol.TherewasalsotheconcernhiswifeEmmahadexpressedjustbeforetheirmarriage–thatthecritical,questioningmentalityappropri-atetoalifeinsciencemightencouragescepticismonmattersoffaith.Nevertheless,themostsensitiveaccountsofDarwin’sdoubtshavestressedtheiroriginsinexperiencesandtraumascommontothehumancondition.Therewasthedeathofhisinfidelfather,forc-inghimtoconfrontonceagainthat‘damnabledoctrine’ofeternaldamnation.‘IcanhardlyseehowanyoneoughttowishChristianitytobetrue’,hewouldlaterwriteinapassagethathiswifeconsideredso‘raw’thatshewishedtohaveitexcisedfromhisAutobiography.33Excisedbecause,inheropinion,Charles’characterisationofChris-tiandoctrinehadbecomeacaricature.ThentherewasthetragedyofhisdaughterAnnie’sdeathin1851–thecrueldeathofaninno-centten-year-old,whichmarkedforDarwinthecrucifixionofallhishopes.34ManyoftheingredientsofDarwin’sagnosticismsprangfromin-cidentseasilymissedifonelooksonlytohisscience.Animpor-tantstepwashisrealisationthattheradicalfriendswithwhomheassociatedinhisLondonyears–membersofthecircleofHarrietMartineau–couldleadanexemplarymorallifewithoutembracingtheChristianreligion.35Thischallengedacommonculturalassump-tionthatatheistscouldnotbetrustedbecauseanyoaththeymighttakewouldnotbebinding.Darwin’sreligiousslidewasperhapsnotsodifferentfromthatofFrancisNewman,brotherofthemoreCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n206johnhedleybrookefamous,andmuchmoreorthodox,JohnHenryNewman,andoneofthe‘honestdoubters’whomDarwinstudiedintheearly1850s.36WhatofDarwin’spublicutterances?Ithasbecomeincreasinglyclearhowcarefullytheymustberead.Fromhisnotebooksweknowthathehadtocalculatewhatheshouldnotsay.37Itwasalsoex-pedienttokeepwhathesaidaboutreligiontoaminimum.‘Manyyearsago’,hereminisced,‘Iwasstronglyadvisedbyafriendnevertointroduceanythingaboutreligioninmyworks,ifIwishedtoad-vancescienceinEngland.’38Theremayhavebeenexpediency,too,inprotectinghimselffromcensure.Butitisacomplexmatterbe-causehealsosharedthebeliefthatitwasungentlemanlytodisturbthefaithofothers.Thismeanstherecanbeagreaterambiguityinhispublicremarksonreligionthaninprivate.HereisDarwincon-fidingtoJosephHookerinMarch1863:‘IhavelongregrettedthatItruckledtopublicopinion,andusedthePentateuchaltermofcre-ation,bywhichIreallymeant‘appeared’bysomewhollyunknownprocess.’39Becauseheregrettedhavingusedbiblicallanguageitdoesnotfol-lowthathewasadmittingtoatheism.ItisevenpossiblehewastrucklingtoHooker!ButitisindisputablethathelostaspecificallyChristianfaith.Hecouldwritethatscienceitselfhad‘nothingtodowithChrist,exceptinsofarasthehabitofscientificresearchmakesamancautiousinadmittingevidence’.Butthatverycaution,justasEmmahadfeared,tookitstoll:‘FormyselfIdonotbelievethatthereeverhasbeenanyrevelation.’40IthasbeensuggestedthatDarwin’sevidentialistviewofChristianitygoesbacktoanotherworkofPaley,hisEvidencesofChristianity.Ifthatiscorrectthereisasubtleirony.TheAnglicanChurchitselfhadtaughthimtotesttherationalityoffaiththroughthestudyofevidence–alessonthathesotooktoheartthatitcosthimthebeliefshehadearlierespoused.WritingtotheAmericanbotanistAsaGray,DarwinconfessedthathecouldnotseeevidencefordesigninnatureasclearlyasGrayappar-entlycould.WhereasGraysupposedthatthevariationsonwhichnaturalselectionworkedwereledbyprovidenceinpropitiousdi-rections,Darwininterpretedthemasappearingatrandomwithoutanyprospectiveuseinmind.ForDarwinthecasewaslikethatofabuilderwhomightusestonestobuildahousebutwhereitwouldbeimpossibletoclaimthatthestoneshadcometobeasandwheretheywereforthatpurpose.Inarevealingreply,GrayconcededthatCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinandVictorianChristianity207hehadnoanswertosuchanargument–exceptthattheperceptionofdesigninnaturewas,afterall,basedonfaithandnotreasonalone.41InhisprivatecorrespondenceDarwinexultedinhisvictory.42Yet,evenforDarwinhimself,theissuewasnottransparent.Onseveraloccasionshesaidthathecouldnotbelievesowonderfulauniverseistheproductofchancealone.Hewasattractedtotheformulathatitwastheresultofdesignedlaws,withthedetailslefttochance.Butthenthedistinctivenessofhisagnosticismshinesthrough.Hehadconvictionsthattheuniverseinitsmainlinesofdevelopmentwasnottheproductofchance.Convictionsofthatsortwerewhatagnos-ticswerenotsupposedtohave.Yet,disarmingasever,Darwinaskedwhetherheshouldtrusthisownconvictions–especiallyifhisownmindwastheproductofevolution:‘Canthemindofman,whichhas...beendevelopedfromamindaslowasthatpossessedbythelowestanimals,betrustedwhenitdrawssuchgrandconclusions?’43InDarwin’sDescentofMan(1871)anaturalisticaccountwasgivenofthemoralsenseanditsorigin.Thiscouldbedeeplywound-ingforhiscontemporaries.Inanagethatexperiencedacrisisoffaith,beliefinmoralabsoluteshadsometimesbeenalifeline.Darwin’saccountcertainlywoundedhiswife.TohersonFrancisshespokefrankly:‘yourfather’sopinionthatallmoralityhasgrownupbyevo-lutionispainfultome’.Theoffendingsuggestionwasthatachild’sbeliefinGodmightbecomparedwithamonkey’sfearofasnake–inculcateduntilitalmostbecameaninstinct.44BecauseDarwin’sworkcouldbesowounding,weshouldturntoitsreception.ivreligiousresponsestodarwin’stheoryDarwin’stheorywasboundtobeadivisiveissuewithintheChurchesbecauseitwassoeasilytransformedintoanaturalisticworldview,inwhichreferencestoadeityweremarginalisedorexcluded.Scholarshavespokenofaclashbetweenpositivismandcreationism,betweenchanceversusdesign,betweencontendingappealstoauthority,thescientificversustheclerical.Toplacetheclashofideasinasocialandpoliticalcontext,twothe-seshavebecomeprominent.FrankTurnerhasseentheDarwiniandebatesassymptomaticofaprofoundsocialchangeinwhichscien-tificamateurs(epitomisedbyclericalnaturalists)weredisplacedbyayoungergenerationofprofessionalscientists(typifiedbyThomasCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n208johnhedleybrookeHenryHuxley)eagertoasserttheirrigorousstandardsandculturalauthority.45Notwithoutprovocation,advocatesofscientificnatu-ralismsometimeswentontheoffensive,aswhenthephysicistJohnTyndallatthe1874BelfastmeetingoftheBritishAssociationfortheAdvancementofSciencedeclaredthat‘weshallwrestfromtheologytheentiredomainofcosmologicaltheory’.46ThesecondthesisisthatofAdrianDesmondandJamesMoorewhoaskfromwhereDarwinderivedhispredilectionforcausalex-planationsofanimaldistribution.Theypointtotheinfluenceofscientificmentors:RobertGrant,CharlesLyell,JohnHerschel.But,theyadd,‘allthesewereparticulateinfluenceswithinamuchwideranddeepersea-change.ThetidewasrunningtowardsnaturalisminanagerejectingOxbridgeAnglicanismforDissentingindustrialism.Naturewasbeingreformed–purgedofmiracles,subjectedtolaw–andthemessagewasrifeinradicalliteraturearoundthetimeofthefirstReformAct.’47Aswithallsuchgeneralthesesthereisroomfornuance.InthephysicalsciencesofDarwin’sera,onecouldbeathoroughlyprofes-sionalscientist,weddedtorigorousstandardsinone’swork,andstillpreferatheisticworldviewtoonepurgedofdesign.ThiswouldbetrueofJamesClerkMaxwellandWilliamThomson(LordKelvin),ofwhomithasrecentlybeensaidthatthey‘notonlyembeddedtheirnewnaturalphilosophyintheculturesofPresbyterianismbuthadalsobeenreadytodeploythatnaturalphilosophyintheserviceofaChristianitysuitabletothewantsofVictorianBritain’.48Energysourceswereconceivedasgiftsanalogoustothespiritualgiftofgrace,whichwhenacceptedcarriedanobligationtoensuretheywerenotwasted.TherewerephysicistswhosuspectedthatsecularthinkerswerefallingforDarwinismbecauseitsuitedtheirpurpose,notforsolidreasons.49Itisamistaketoassumethatthescientificcom-munitywasunitedbehindDarwin,justasitwouldbeamistaketoimaginethatallChristiantheologianslinedupagainsthim.AsaqualificationtothethesisofDesmondandMoore,ithasbeensuggestedthatthepoliticsofevolutionmayhavebeenlessradical–atleastinEnglandandScotland–thantheseauthorsimply.50Therewasnolackofevolutionistsorfellow-travellersinthelate1830s:BadenPowell,WilliamCarpenter,RobertChambersandFrancisNewmanwouldbeexamples.Darwinmayhavefeltthattoconfesshis‘murder’(admittingthemutabilityofspecies)wouldhaveledtohisbeingCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinandVictorianChristianity209stigmatisedalongwithartisanradicals;butthesuggestionisthathemighthavebeenmistakeninthatbelief.Howonewastreateddependedonwhoonewas,notsimplyonwhatonesaid.ToimposesocialandpoliticaldichotomiesontheDarwiniande-batescanbemisleadingifnospaceisleftforintermediatepositions.AlargespacewascreatedbyBadenPowell,Oxford’sProfessorofGeometry,whowishedtoprotecttheautonomyofbothscienceandtheologybygivingtomenofscienceallthefreedomtheyneededtoinvestigatenature,atthesametimeassigningjurisdictionovermoralissuestothetheologian.51EvenDarwin’sadvocatesoftenpreferredtoseetheirscienceasa-theologicalratherthananti-theological.T.H.HuxleyreferredtothesciencesasneitherChristiannorun-Christianbutextra-Christian.52HefoundnothinginDarwinianevolutiontoexcludethepossibilityofanoriginaldesigninaprimordialstateoftheuniverse.53Somemodernwriterssuggestthat,bydestroyingPaley’sargumentfordesign,DarwindeprivedChristianityofitsrationalfoundation.Thisisaseriousmistakebecausethereweretheologicalperspec-tivesfromwhichthedesignargumentwasofminorimportance.ItwasseenbysomeHighChurchAnglicansaslittlemorethantheideologicalconstructofascientificcommunityseekingtopromoteitselfbyclaimingthatthescienceswerespirituallyedifying.Thissci-entificrhetoricfoundlittlefavourwithJohnHenryNewman,oneofthemostinfluentialtheologiansofthemid-nineteenthcentury,whofamouslydesertedtheAnglicanChurchfortheChurchofRome.InhisvisionofanidealuniversityNewmanconcededthatthedesignargumentmayteachGod’spower,but‘WhatdoesPhysicalTheologytellusofdutyandconscience?Ofaparticularprovidenceand,com-ingatlengthtoChristianity,whatdoesitteachusevenofthefourlastthings,death,judgment,heavenandhell,themereelementsofChristianity?’Newman’sconclusionwasthat‘itcannottellusany-thingofChristianityatall’.54ThereisasenseinwhichhewasmorecriticalofPaleythanhewasofDarwin.Forreligiousthinkerswhofocusedonevolutionaryprogresstherewerewaysofintegratingthephysicaldevelopmentofhumankindwithaspiritualdevelopmentthatcrownedtheprocess.Suchevolu-tionaryschemeswereoftenfacile.HenryDrummond,minimisingthewasteandcarnageinnature,shiftedattentionfromthestruggleforexistencetoanaltruisticstruggleforthelifeofothers.AndinCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n210johnhedleybrookehisimmortalwordsitwasbettertohavelivedandbeeneatenthannottohavelivedatall!Itmay,however,betooeasytoridiculethetheologianswhominimisedthenastinessofnaturalselection.EvenamongDarwinianbiologists,naturalselectionremainedhighlycontroversial.DarwinhimselfacknowledgedthatheprobablygaveittoomuchprominenceinthefirsteditionofhisOrigin,whileHuxleyalwaysthoughtnewspeciesaroseby‘saltations’(largesud-denchanges).Ifnaturalselectionwaseclipsedbyotherevolution-arycausesevenamongnaturaliststhemselves,weshouldexercisecautionbeforeaccusingthetheologiansofdistortion.Scientificdis-agreementovertherelativeimportanceofnaturalselectionandtheinheritanceofcharacteristicsacquiredbyuseanddisusecreatedthespaceforschemesoftheisticevolutioninwhichteleologicalfactorswereretained.55Reconstructingthefossilrecordtodisplayindepen-dentlinesofconvergencetowardsafewarchetypalstructures(ratherthanDarwin’sprocessofincreasingdivergence),onecouldargue,asdidJ.H.Newman’sproteg´eStGeorgeMivart,thattheevolutionary´processwasindeedunderdivinecontrol.56Becausereligioussensibilitiesdependedonlocationaswellastradition,itisimpossibletogeneraliseaboutChristianresponses.EvenwithinthesameChristiandenominationstherewasdiversity.WhereastheAnglicanbishopofOxford,SamuelWilberforce,thoughthecoulddemolishDarwin’stheoryonscientificandphilosophicalgrounds,anotherAnglicandivine,FrederickTemple,wasreceptivetothenewscienceasearlyas1860.WhereasinBelfastatraditionalCalvinismwasusedtorefutethepreceptsofevolution,atCalvinistPrinceton,undertheleadershipofJamesMcCosh,biologicalevolu-tionwasaccepted.57OnereasonforthecontrastwasthelegacyinBelfastofJohnTyndall’s1874addressasPresidentoftheBritishAs-sociation.HisaggressiveremarksthatwenotedearlierencouragedtheviewthatDarwinism,atheismandmaterialismwenthandinhand.Toaddtothediversitytherewereprominentscientistswhodoubtedwhetherthedevelopmentofthehumanmindcouldbere-ducedtotheactionofnaturalselection.Darwin’smentorCharlesLyellisoneexample:aconverttoevolutionarytheorywhonever-thelessheldbackwhenitcametotheuniquenessofthehumanmind.Darwin’sco-founderofthetheoryofnaturalselection,AlfredRusselWallace,isanother.WallacehadrejectedanevangelicalChristianityCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinandVictorianChristianity211earlyinlifebutlaterbecameenthralledbyaspiritualistphilosophy,evenseekingtotestitexperimentally.58ToDarwin’sregret,Wal-laceinsistedthatcertainattributesofthehumanmind,notablyitsaesthetic,musicalandmathematicalpowers,defiedexplanationbynaturalselection.NeitherLyellnorWallacewasorthodoxinhisreligiousbeliefs.BycontrasttherewererespectableChristianclericswhoencouragedDarwinwiththeirsupport.OneofthefirstwastheChristiansocial-istCharlesKingsley;anotherwasFrederickTemple,whoseadvocacydidnotpreventhimfrombecomingArchbishopofCanterbury.Bothdecidedthatitrequiredmorewisdominadeitytomakeallthingsmakethemselvesthantomakeallthingsdirectly.Kingsley’spointwasthat,onDarwin’sview,onecouldsafelyrejecttheimageofaninterferingdeity–amagicianwhohadconjurednewspecies,asitwere,outofahat.TherewasnowtheprospectofemancipationfromsuchachildishvisionandthatwouldstrengthenamatureChristian-ity.Templeheldasimilarview,rebukingthosetheologianswhohadsooftenbuiltontheshiftingsandofwhatsciencecouldnotyetex-plain.Hewelcomedtheextensionofnaturallawbecausethismadeitmoreprobablethattheworldwasalsogovernedbymorallaw.59OtheradvantageswereseeninaDarwiniantheology.AsaGray,whochampionednaturalselectioninAmerica,arguedthattheprob-lemofsuffering,sodifficultforChristiantheologians,wasmitigatedratherthanmagnifiedbyDarwin’stheory.Hispointwasthat,ifpainandsufferingwerenecessaryconcomitantsofastruggleforexistencethatwasitselfapreconditionoftheemergenceofcomplexbeingslikeourselves,thenthiswasthepricethathadtobepaidforatrulycre-ativeprocess.Theargumentcouldbegivenanothertwist,inkeepingwithDarwin’searlyspeculations.Aprocessinwhichthelawsweredesignedbutthedetailslefttochancemightexplainnature’smorerepulsiveproductswithouthavingtoascribethemdirectlytodivineaction.AdifferentmovewasmadebysomeOxfordtheologianstowardstheendofthenineteenthcenturywhentheyreassertedtheChristiandoctrineoftheIncarnation–thatGodhadtakenhumanforminthepersonofJesusChrist.Thisledthemtostressdivineparticipationinanevolvingworldratherthantheinterferingdeusexmachinaofaclockworkuniverse.Oneoftheirnumber,AubreyMoore,insistedthatundertheguiseofafoeDarwinhaddonetheworkofafriend.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n212johnhedleybrookeInsteadofanabsenteedeitywhooccasionallyintervened,onehadtochoosenowbetweenaGodwhowasinallorinnothing.60Byusingevolutionarytheoryasatheologicalresource,writerssuchasKingsley,TempleandMoorebaptiseditinBritain.vdarwinismandreligioninbroaderperspectiveBecauseevolutioncouldberegardedasacreativeprocess,thedamageinflictedbyDarwinonopen-mindedChristianbelieverscaneasilybeexaggerated.TheVictoriancrisisoffaithhadotherroots,extend-ingbacktotheEnlightenment.InFranceVoltairehadattackedthemoralityofafaithgroundedinOldTestamentconceptionsofapar-tisanandvengefuldeity.Othervoices,too,hadprotestedagainsttheintolerance,especiallyoftheCatholicChurch,towardsanyformofreligiousdissent.InEnglandJosephPriestleyhadstoodupfor‘ratio-naldissent’,aphilosophicalpositionfromwhichheattackedCalvin-isttheology,thedoctrineoftheTrinity,thedualityofmatterandspiritandtheideathattheDeitycoulddirectlyinfluencethehumanmind.61FromGermanyhadcomemethodsofbiblicalcriticismthatintheirmostradicalformsstrippedChristofhismiracles.WhileDavidStrauss’DasLebenJesu[LifeofJesus](1835)didnotoutrightaccusethegospelwritersofdeliberatefalsification,itarguedthattheyhadwrittenaftertheeventstheydescribed,andwithinatra-ditionofpropheticliteraturethatassociatedtheMessianicerawithsignsandwonders.Thisdidnothavetomeanthatthesebiblicalwriterslackedspecialinspiration;butitimpliedthattheyhadbeenordinary,falliblemen,whosebeliefsreflectedtheirowntimes.Onecouldstillargue,asliberalAnglicanChristiansdid,thattheBibleshouldnotbeunderstoodastheunmediatedwordofGodbutasaninspiringrecordofadevelopingspirituality,ofprogressivereligiousdiscernment.Nevertheless,whenadvocatedinEssaysandReviews(1860),thisthesisangeredconservativechurchmen.OtherforceshadthrowntheEnglishChurchonthedefence.Urbanisationandindustrialisationhadencouragedthespreadofnewsecularvalues.Anexpandingliteracyandavoraciousdemandforreadingmatterhadcreatedasituationinwhich,by1853,oneclergymanestimatedthat28.5millionpublicationswereappearingannuallyfromsecularpressesagainst24.5millionfromreligiousCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinandVictorianChristianity213publishers.62Itlookedasifthedevilwaswinning.Addingtotheconcern,intellectualswithintheChurchwereamongthehonestdoubters–atleastoncertainpointsofdoctrine.When,inhisThe-ologicalEssays(1853),F.D.Mauricecriticisedthedoctrinethatthespirituallyunregeneratewouldendureeternaldamnation,hisliber-alismcosthimhisChairatKing’sCollegeLondon.HiscourageousexpressionofdoubtactedasacatalystforotherswhowishedtoreformtheChristianfaith.CharlesKingsley,forexample,wasasre-ceptivetoMaurice’steachingashewastoDarwin’s.HetoldMauricethathe‘wasutterlyastonishedatfindinginpageafterpagethingswhichIhadthought,andhardlydaredtoconfesstomyself,muchlesstopreach’.63TheseweretrendsthatowedlittletoDarwin,whooneternalpunishmentsharedthemoralrepugnanceofothers.Inanimportantrespect,however,Darwin’ssciencereinforcedtheimpactofbiblicalcriticism.DarwinmadethesameassumptionsasStraussaboutthecontinuityofnatureandtheincredibilityofmiracles.‘Themoreweknowofthefixedlawsofnature’,Darwinwrote,‘themoreincredibledomiraclesbecome’.64Darwin’ssciencealsocontributedtowhatformanyVictoriansbecameasubstitutereligion–areligionofhumanperfectibilityandtechnologicalprogress,consonantwithDarwin’sbeliefthatnaturalselectionworkedonlyfortheimprovementofspecies.65Theassumptionofinevitableconflictbetween‘science’and‘re-ligion’pervadesmodernWesternculture.IthassponsoredaviewofhistoryinwhichChristianclericsarethevillainsseekingtosup-press,asinthecaseofGalileo,thewell-foundedknowledgeofscien-tificheroes.Darwin’stheoryandthenegativeresponsestoitmightseemtocorroboratethemodel.Yettheconflictthesiswaslargelyaproductofthenineteenthcentury,itschampionshavingpersonalreasonsformockingecclesiasticalauthority.JohnDraper’sHistoryoftheConflictbetweenReligionandScience(1875)wasadiatribeagainsttheRomanCatholicChurch,promptedbyrecentproclama-tionsthatpublicinstitutionsteachingliteratureandscienceshouldnotbeexemptfromtheChurch’sauthorityandthatthepopewasinfalliblewhenspeakingexcathedraonmattersoffaithandmorals.AndrewWhite’sAHistoryoftheWarfareofSciencewithTheol-ogyinChristendom(1896)waswritteninreactiontostingingcriti-cismhereceivedfromChristianclericswhenhischarterforCornellCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n214johnhedleybrookeUniversityplaceditunderthecontrolofnoonereligioussect.BothDraperandWhiteprojecteda‘conflictbetweenscienceandreligion’backwardsintime,usingcategoriesthatwereanachronistic.66Theywerenotaloneinconstructingsweepingnarrativesinwhichsciencewasdefeatingdogmatictheology.InFranceAugusteComtehadal-readyadvertisedhisthree-stagemodelfortheprogressofhumancivilisation–fromatheologicalstage,whennaturalphenomenahadbeenascribedtogods,toametaphysicalstagewhenabstractcon-cepts(suchasNewton’sforceofgravitation)hadbeenexplanatoryresources,tothepresentscientificor‘positive’stagerepresentedbyverifiedfactsandlaws.Comtehadhisreasons:hewishedtosetupa‘religionofhumanity’todisplacethatoftheCatholicChurchinFrance.67Religiousbattlesoverevolutionseemedtosupportthesemasternarratives.Draperobservedthattherewasacontroversyragingoverthemethodofdivinegovernmentoftheworld–whetherthiswasbydirectinterventionorthroughtheruleoflaw.Thiswasoneoftheprimaryissuesindebatesoverevolution.WhitesawinclericaloppositiontoDarwinthelastthroesoftheChurchinabattleshewasdestinedtolose.Darwinmayhaveperceivedhimselfasusher-ingbiologyintoComte’s‘positive’stage,leavingmetaphysicalandtheologicalconcernsbehind.Thereare,however,problemswiththe‘conflict’model.Itcon-cealsthefactthatmanyscientistshavehaddeepreligiousconvic-tionsandthatwithinreligioustraditionstherehaveusuallybeenliberalaswellasconservativeforces.Conflictsinthepasthavesome-timesarisenbecausereligiousthinkershaveembracednewsciencetooenthusiastically,onlytofindthemselvesstrandedwhentheirsanctifiedsciencebecomesobsolete.Aconflictmodelalsoconcealstheeffortsofmediatorstoachieveharmonyorintegration.InthecaseoftheDarwiniandebatesitwouldconcealmenofscience,suchasRichardOwenandStGeorgeMivart,whoarguedforevolutionasanunfoldingofadivineplan,justasitwouldconcealadvocatesoftheisticevolutionamongthetheologians.Iftheconflictmodelisdefective,arethereotherwaysofrelatingscienceandreligion?Somescholarshavegonetotheotherextreme,arguingthatadoctrineofCreationpositivelycontributedtotheriseofmodernscience.68Thismaysoundimplausible,butpioneersofWesternscience,suchasCopernicus,KeplerandNewtoncertainlyCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinandVictorianChristianity215thoughtofthemselvesasuncoveringamathematicalharmonyinnaturethathadbeentheproductnotofchancebutofdivinechoice.Therationalityofsciencerequiredthatnaturebeorderlyandin-telligible.ThesetwoassumptionswerereasonableifanintelligentCreatorhadprescribedthelawsofnature.PhysicalscientiststothisdaysometimesspeakasiftheyareprivytothemindofGod,echoingKepler’sbeliefthat,throughthelanguageofmathematics,hecouldthinkGod’sthoughtsafterHim.Thequestforelegance,symmetryandharmonyinscientifictheoriescanbeunderstoodtheologically.Einsteinoncesaidthatwhenaskedtoevaluateaphysicaltheoryhewouldalwaysaskhimselfwhether,ifhehadbeenGod,hewouldhavemadetheworldthatway.69Arevisionisthistorianmightobservethat,inhisOriginofSpecies,Darwinspokeof‘lawsimpressedonmatterbytheCreator’.InprivatecorrespondenceDarwindeclaredthathehadneverbeenanatheistinthesenseofdenyingtheexistenceofadeity.Hisconfidencethathistheorydisclosedhiddenrealitiesbehindthemaskofnaturewasconceivablyalegacyfromatheisticpositioninwhichthehumanmindwasprivilegedtoknowsuchthings.70Ontherevisionistview,onewouldfocusontheChristianthinkerswhohaveinsistedoncompatibilityratherthanconflictbetweenDarwinianscienceandtheirfaith.Justastheconflictthesisignoresmanyinstancesofharmonybetweenscienceandreligion,therevisionistresponsetendstominimisethedissonance.71TherearecertainlypopularisersofDarwinianevolutiontodaywho,reconstructingthetortuouspathbywhichhumanshaveevolved,wouldsaythat,hadtheybeenGod,theywouldnothavemadetheworldthisway.However,nouna-nimityexistsonsuchmetaphysicalquestions.AmongevolutionarybiologiststhereareChristianswhorecognisethatareligiousfaithcanansweraperson’smoralandexistentialconcernsinwaysthatscientificknowledgealonecannot.ResponsestoDarwinianevolutionhavevariedfromcontexttocontextandstilldo.Wesawsomethingofthisintheprevioussectionwhenexaminingtherangeofearlyreactions.Theanti-DarwinianlobbyinNorthAmericahasbeenmorevociferousinsomestatesthanothers.Oneoftheappealingfeaturesofapostmodernapproachtoissuesinscienceandreligionisthatitinvitesthecarefulstudyoflocalcontextsandwhatdifferentiatesonefromanother.IntheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n216johnhedleybrookefamousScopestrial(1925),WilliamJenningsBryancametoDayton,Tennessee,todefendthepoweroflocalmajoritiestoenactalaw–inthiscasealawagainstteachinghumanevolutioninpublicschools.Recentresearchhasshownhowfarthehistoricalrealitydifferedfromthelegend.OnereasonwhyBryanwishedtobantheteachingofhumanevolutionwasthatithadcometobeassociatedwithwhathesawasadistastefulcommitmenttoeugenics.72DoesthismeanthatanyreputableaccountoftheimpactofDar-win’stheoryonreligioussensibilitieshastofragmentintomanydisconnectedstories?Yesandno.Toescapefromthecrudemaster-narrativesandtoappreciatethediversityofresponse,itisessen-tialtoundertakecomparativestudiesofdifferentnationalandlocalcontexts.73MoreworkneedstobedoneoncontrastsbetweenNorthAmericaandBritain,whereananti-Darwinianright-wingChristian-ityhasneverbeenaseriouspoliticalforce.StillmoreneedstobedoneonresponsestoDarwininotherworldreligions.74Ontheotherhand,itispossibletoidentifyrecurringmetaphysicalandtheolog-icalissueswhereverDarwinismisdiscussed–whether,forexam-ple,natureisfullyautonomous;whetherthereareidentifiableandperhapsevenconvergenttrendsinevolutionaryprocesses;whethertheremightbedesigninthelawsgoverningevolution;whetherallmentalcapacities,evenreligioussensibilitiesthemselves,canbefullyexplainedbynaturalselection;andwhetherthequintessen-tiallyDarwinianconceptofnaturalselectioncanbeappliedtothedevelopmentofothersystems,includingentireuniverses.Suchques-tionswillcontinuetoproducedisparateanswers;butitwouldbedifficulttodenythatDarwincontributeddecisivelytoanintellec-tualtrend,inbothEuropeandAmerica,whichledtotheexclusionofGod-talkfromtechnicalscientifictexts.notes1.C.Darwin1958,57.2.Rudwick1986.3.Ellegard[˚1958]1990,155–73.4.Gillespie1979,19–40.5.BrookeandCantor1998,207–35.6.Simpson1967;Dawkins1986.7.Gould1989.8.F.Darwin[1888]1969,i,309.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinandVictorianChristianity2179.F.Darwin[1888]1969,ii,218.10.Ospovat1980and1981;Brooke1985.11.W.Cannon1961.12.LaVergata1985,957.13.Browne1995,385–90.14.Yeo1979and1993.15.Brooke1985,46–7.16.Sloan2001.17.DesmondandMoore1991,122.18.DarwinandWallace1958,87.19.Brooke1985,47.20.Ospovat1981.21.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,152–3.22.Brooke1985,41.23.BurchBrown1986;Mandelbaum1958;Brooke2009.24.F.Darwin[1888]1969,i,311–12.25.F.Darwin[1888]1969,i,304.26.Brooke1990;DesmondandMoore1991,7–9.27.F.Darwin[1888]1969,i,312–13.28.Sloan2001.29.Manier1978.30.Barrettetal.,1987,CharlesDarwin’sNotebooks,NotebookC,MSp.244;C.Darwin[1871]1981,65–9.31.C.Darwin1958,86.32.F.Darwin[1888]1969,i,311.33.C.Darwin1958,87.34.DesmondandMoore1991,375–87.35.Erskine1987.36.DesmondandMoore1991,376–8.37.Kohn1989,224.38.Brooke1985,41.39.Gillespie1979,134.40.F.Darwin[1888]1969,i,307.41.J.R.Moore1979,276.42.F.Darwin[1888]1969,i,314.43.F.Darwin[1888]1969,i,313.44.C.Darwin1958,93.45.Turner1978and1993.46.Tyndall[1874]1970,474–5.47.DesmondandMoore1998,15948.C.Smith1998,307.49.D.B.Wilson1984.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n218johnhedleybrooke50.Corsi1998,135.51.Powell1861,127–8;Corsi1988,218–19.52.Dixon1999,322.53.F.Darwin[1888]1969,ii,201–2.54.Rupke1983,271.55.Gregory1986,374.56.Desmond1982,183.57.Livingstone1992.58.Kottler1974.59.Elder1996.60.Peacocke1985,110–11.61.Brooke1990.62.Fyfe2000,80.63.Kingsley1883,146.64.C.Darwin1958,86.65.Passmore1970,239–40.66.Brooke1991,33–42.67.BrookeandCantor1998,47–57.68.Jaki1978;Klaaren1977;Milton1981.69.Chandrasekhar1990,68.70.Gillespie1979,144–5.71.Gruner1975;Brooke1991,42–51.72.Larson1998,6and28.73.Cantor2001.74.Bezirgan1974;Killingley1995;Swetlitz1999.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\ndianeb.paul9Darwin,socialDarwinismandeugenicsiambivalencesandinfluencesHowdoesDarwin’sDarwinismrelatetosocialDarwinismandeu-genics?LikemanyfoesofDarwinism,pastandpresent,theAmericanpopulistandcreationistWilliamJenningsBryanthoughtastraightlineranfromDarwin’stheory(‘adogmaofdarknessanddeath’)tobeliefsthatitisrightforthestrongtocrowdouttheweak,andthattheonlyhopeforhumanimprovementlayinselectivebreeding.1Darwin’sdefenders,ontheotherhand,havetypicallyviewedso-cialDarwinismandeugenicsasperversionsofhistheory.DanielDennettspeaksformanybiologistsandphilosophersofsciencewhenhecharacterisessocialDarwinismas‘anodiousmisapplica-tionofDarwinianthinking’.2Thatperspectiveisalsoreflectedinthe2005–6blockbusterDarwinshowcuratedbytheAmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory,wherethesectionon‘SocialDarwinism’,sub-titled‘MisusingDarwin’sTheory’,claimsthatallusesofDarwin’stheorytojustifyparticularsocial,political,oreconomicprinciples‘haveonefundamentalflaw:theyuseapurelyscientifictheoryforacompletelyunscientificpurpose.IndoingsotheymisrepresentandmisappropriateDarwin’soriginalideas’.3FewprofessionalhistoriansbelieveeitherthatDarwin’stheoryleadsdirectlytothesedoctrinesorthattheyareentirelyunrelated.Butboththenatureandsignifi-canceofthelinkarepassionatelydisputed.ThischapterexaminestheviewsheldbyDarwinhimselfandbylaterDarwiniansonthesocialimplicationsandimpactofhistheory.Morespecifically:sectionIIdiscussesthedebatesabouthumanevo-lutioninthewakeofDarwin’sOriginofSpecies(1859).4SectionsIIIandIVanalyseDarwin’sambiguouscontributiontothesedebates.219CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n220dianeb.paulSometimescelebratingcompetitivestruggle,healsowishedtomod-erateitseffects;sometimesthinkingcontrolofhumanreproductionessential,healsoconsideredcompulsoryrestrictionsonbreedingim-practicalandimmoral.SectionsVandVIseehowothersinterpretedboththescienceandsocialmeaningofDarwinism.Darwin’sfollow-ersfoundinhisambiguitieslegitimationforwhatevertheyfavoured:laissez-fairecapitalism,certainly,butalsoliberalreform,anarchismandsocialism;colonialconquest,warandpatriarchy,butalsoanti-imperialism,peaceandfeminism.SectionVIIrelatesDarwinismtoeugenics.Darwinandmanyofhisfollowersthoughtselectionnolongeractedinmodernsociety,fortheweakinmindandbodyarenotculled.Thisraisedaprospectofdegenerationthatworriedpeo-pleofallpoliticalstripes;buttherewasnoconsensusonhowtocounterthisthreat.InNaziGermany,eugenicswaslinkedtoanespeciallyharshDarwinism.SectionVIIIsees‘Darwinismus’em-bracedinitiallybypoliticalprogressives,andonlylaterbyracistandreactionarynationalists.SectionIXconcludesbyassessingDarwin’simpactonsocialissuesandbyreflectingonwherewearenow.iiinthewakeoftheoriginTheOrigindidnotdiscusshumanevolution;butDarwin’speerswerelessreticent,andwithinamonthdebatefocusedontheimpli-cationsofDarwin’stheoryforhumanbiologicalandsocialprogress.Darwineventuallypublishedhismajorworkonsocialevolution,TheDescentofMan,andSelectioninRelationtoSex,in1871.IntheDescent,Darwinengagedthesecontroversies,especiallyastheyhadproceededinBritain.AlfredRusselWallace,co-discovereroftheprincipleofnaturalselectionandoneoftheveryfewBritishnaturalistsfromanon-elitefamily,wasamongthefirsttodiscussitssocialimplications.LikeDarwin,hehadbeenwrestlingwiththeissueforaverylongtime.5Inaninfluential1864paper,Wallacearguedthatselectionwouldcauserationalityandaltruismtospread.Oncethisprocessbecamewelldeveloped,individualswithweakconstitutionswouldbecaredfor;thusselectionwouldcometofocusonmentalandmoral,ratherthanphysical,qualities.Inthestruggleforexistenceamongtribes,thosewhosememberstendedtoactinconcertandshowforesight,self-restraintandasenseofright,wouldhaveanadvantageovertribesinCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin,socialDarwinismandeugenics221whichthesetraitswerelessdeveloped.Theformerwouldflourish,resultinginconstantmentalandmoralimprovement.Ultimately,thewholeworldwouldconsistofonerace,andtheneedforgovern-mentorrestrictivelawswouldvanish.Theprocessthatledtoutopiawouldalsoguaranteetheex-tinctionofnativepopulationssuchasAmericanandBrazilianIndians,AustralianaboriginesandNewZealandMaoris.AccordingtoWallace,‘savageman’wouldinevitablydisappearinencounterswithEuropeanswhosesuperiorintellectual,moralandphysicalqualitiesenablethemtoprevail‘inthestruggleforexistence,andtoincreaseathisexpense’,justasthemorefavouredvarietiesincreaseamonganimalsandplants,and‘justastheweedsofEuropeoverrunNorthAmericaandAustralia,extinguishingnativepopulations’thankstotheirinherentlymorevigorous‘organization’and‘theirgreatercapacityforexistenceandmultiplication’.6Wallace’sfocuswasonthestruggleamongsocieties.Butmanyofhispeersweremoreconcernedwithwhetherselectionstilloperatedathome.Lesserraceswouldnotsurvivethebrutalbutultimatelybeneficent(andinanycaseinexorable)strugglewiththeirsuperi-ors,butinBritainandother‘civilizedsocieties’itseemedthattheprocessofselectionhadbeenchecked.Modernmedicineandhu-manitarianmeasurespreventedeliminationofthephysicallyandmentallyweak.Moreover,theleastdesirableelementsinsocietywereapparentlyoutbreedingthebest,promptingfearsthatthedi-rectionofevolutionmightactuallyreverse.Thefirsttosoundanalarmaboutthe‘differentialbirthrate’wasDarwin’scousin,FrancisGalton.Inhis1865essay,‘Hereditarytalentandcharacter’,Galtonarguedthathumanintellectual,moralandpersonalitytraits–especiallythosemakingforsuccessinlife–weretransmittedfromparentstooffspring.7Consultingbiographicaldictionaries,Galtondemon-stratedthatmenwhohadachievedeminenceinvariousfieldsweremorelikelythanmembersofthepublicatlargetohavehadclosemalerelativeswhowerethemselvesdistinguished.Althoughcon-cedingthattheinheritanceofsocialadvantagemightexplainsuccessinsomefields,heinsistedthatmostwereopentotalent.Certainlyinscience,literatureandthelaw,talentedindividualswouldsucceed,nomatterhowunfavourabletheirbackground,whiletheuntalentedwouldfail,whatevertheirsocialconnections.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n222dianeb.paulUnfortunately,itseemedthattheintelligent,industriousandfore-sightedwerebeingoutbredbythestupid,lazyandreckless.Giventhecomplexityofmodernlife,thistrend,ifunchecked,couldonlyendindisaster.Thedeclineinintelligencewouldbeespeciallyharmful.HowcouldthistendencybereconciledwithDarwin’sclaimthatthestruggleforexistencetendedtotheconstantimprovementoforganicbeings?Galtonwrotetohiscousinthatnaturalselection‘seemstometospoilandnottoimproveourbreed’since‘itistheclassesofcoarserorganisationwhoseemonthewholethemostfavoured...andwhosurvivetobecometheparentsofthenext[generation]’.8Theobvioussolutionwasforhumanstotakechargeoftheirownevolution,doingforthemselveswhatbreedershaddoneforhorsesandcattle.Butastohowexactlythestockbreeders’methodsshouldbeapplied,Galtonhadlittletosay.Hedidnotproposeanyspecificmeasurestoimprovehumanheredity.Galton’shopeslayinchang-ingmores.Ifpeoplecouldonlybemadetoseetheimportanceofbreeding,awaywouldsurelybefoundtogetthejobdone.TheretiredmillownerWilliamGreglargelyagreedwithGaltonandinsistedthat,unlikethelowerorders,itisthemiddleclasses–energetic,reliable,improvingthemselvesandchoosingtorisenotsink–whodelaymarriageuntiltheycansupportafamily.But,onhowtheresultantswampingofthesegoodelementsbybadistobeprevented,GregwasnomorespecificthanGalton.Inanidealworld,onlythosewhopassedarigorouscompetitiveexaminationwouldbeallowedtobreed,butadmittingthiswasnotarealisticplan,Gregwasleft,likeGalton,hopingthatmoreswouldslowlychangeintherightdirection.9Ataboutthesametime,WalterBagehot,abankerandeditoroftheEconomist,arguedthathumanhistory,atleastinitsearlystages,wasabloodyandbrutalaffair.Theoriginsofcivilisationlayinthetriumphinintertribalwarfareofthemorecohesivetribes.Butprogressisnotinevitable,foritisdifficulttoimproveacoherentandtamesociety.‘Oriental’despotismcrushestherequiredvariabil-ityassoonasitappears.However,Europeanshavebenefittedfromwarfare-generatedinnovationandracialmixing,theirresultingsupe-rioritydemonstratedbytheoutcomeoftheircontactwithprimitivepeoples.10In1868,WallaceshockedDarwinandmanyothersbydenyingthatnaturalselectionalonecouldaccountforhumans’highermentalorCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin,socialDarwinismandeugenics223moralqualities,andcreditingtheirevolutiontoguidancebyforcesfromahigherworldofthespirit.11WishingtodistinguishhispositionfromWallace’s,DarwinfinallyfinishedTheDescentofMan,whichwaspublishedintwovolumesin1871.12ItdidnotmakenearlyasmuchofasplashashadtheOrigin,perhapsbecauseitwasnotnearlyasnovel.Initsapplicationsofthetheoryofnaturalselection,hisDescentdrewheavilyonMalthus,Spencer,Wallace,Galton,Greg,Bagehotandothercontemporarysocialtheorists.13iiidarwinonhumanbiologicalandsocialprogressDarwin’sreadingreinforcedviewshehaddevelopedduringthefiveyears(1831–6)hespentcircumnavigatingtheglobeonHMSBeagle.Darwinhatedslaveryandhiscommentsontheblackpeoplehemet,bothslaveandfree,weresympatheticandrespectful.HewasalsorepelledbythecrueltyofEuropeanconquest,andoftenhadalowopinionofsettlerpopulations.14Butalthoughshockedbythecolonists’methods,Darwinassumedthatconquestitselfwasin-evitable.Inthesecond,1845,editionofhisJournalofResearches,hewrotethat,althoughitisnotonlythewhitemanwhoactsasadestroyer,‘[w]herevertheEuropeanhastrod,deathseemstopursuetheaboriginal....Thevarietiesofmanseemtoactoneachotherinthesamewayasdifferentspeciesofanimals–thestrongeralwaysextirpatingtheweaker.’15Andwhilethemeansmightberepellent,hewassuretheresultswouldbebeneficent.16Darwin’sviewsonhumanevolutionwerestronglyinfluencedbyhisencounterswiththeinhabitantsofTierradelFuego.OnboardtheBeaglewerethreeFuegianswhomitscaptain,RobertFitzRoy,hadcapturedandbroughtbacktoEnglandonanearliervisit.Darwinwasimpressedbothbytheiracutesensesandtheextentoftheircul-turaltransformation.17ButonencounteringFuegiansintheirnativeland,hefoundthemunbelievablystrange,andwasshockedbytheiraggressivebehaviourandapparentcruelty.18RemoteastheseFuegiansseemedfromEnglishmen,Darwinwouldalwaysseecontinuousgradations‘betweenthehighestmenofthehighestracesandthelowestsavages’.19Ratinganimals,espe-ciallyunderdomestication,highlyandsavageslowly,hecouldcloseanygapinintelligencebetweentheFuegiansandtheorang-utanasCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n224dianeb.paulearlyas1838.20Hewouldeventuallyclaimtopreferdescentfromtheheroicmonkeythatriskeditsownlifetosaveitskeeper’s,ortheoldbaboonthatrescuedacomradefromapackofdogs,as‘fromasav-agewhodelightstotorturehisenemies,offersupbloodysacrifices,practicesinfanticidewithoutremorse,treatshiswiveslikeslaves,knowsnodecency,andishauntedbythegrossestsuperstitions’.21DarwinwasthusreceptivetoWallace’sargumentthatselectionguaranteedtheextinctionofalltheprimitivepeopleswithwhomEuropeanscameintocontact.IntheDescent,DarwindrewonWallace’s1864paperandalsoBagehot’sseriesofarticlestoarguethattribeswhichincludedthelargestproportionofmenendowedwithsuperiorintellectualqualities,sympathy,altruism,courage,fidelityandobediencewouldincreaseinnumberandeventuallydisplacetheothertribes.‘Obedience,asMr.Bagehothaswellshewn,isofthehighestvalue’,wroteDarwin,‘foranyformofgovernmentisbetterthannone.’22Theprocessofimprovementcontinuestothepresent,as‘civilisednationsareeverywheresupplantingbarbarousnations’.Sincemoralityisanimportantelementintheirsuccess,boththestandardofmoralityandnumberofmoralmenwill‘tendeverywheretoriseandincrease’.Inheritanceofpropertycontributestothisprocess,sincewithoutcapitalaccumulation‘theartscouldnotprogress;anditischieflythroughtheirpowerthatthecivilisedraceshaveextended,andarenoweverywhereextendingtheirrange,soastotaketheplaceofthelowerraces’.23Butinhisownsociety,progressisnotassured.IntheDescent,Darwinnotedthatwhereasamongsavagestheweakinmindandbodyaresooneliminated,civilisedsocietiesdotheirbesttocheckthisselection.Asylumsforthe‘imbecile,themaimed,andthesick’;poorlaws;medicaleffortstopreserveeverylife;vaccinationagainstsmallpox–allentailthatthe‘weakmembersofcivilisedsocietiespropagatetheirkind’.Anyonewhohasstudied‘thebreedingofdo-mesticanimals’cannotdoubt‘thatthismustbehighlyinjurioustotheraceofman’.Wantofcare,orcarewronglydirected,leadstothe‘degenerationofadomesticrace’.Butexcept‘inthecaseofmanhimself,hardlyanyoneissoignorantastoallowhisworstanimalstobreed’.24Darwinimmediatelyremarks,however,thatthesympa-theticinstinctsthatleadustoaidthehelplessarethemselvestheproductofnaturalselection.Moreover,wecouldnotsuppresstheseinstinctswithoutdamagingthe‘noblestpartofournature’.ToignoreCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin,socialDarwinismandeugenics225theweakandhelplesspurposelywouldbetocommitacertainandgreatevilinreturnforwhatisonlyapossiblefuturebenefit.‘Hencewemustbearwithoutcomplainingtheundoubtedlybadeffectsoftheweaksurvivingandpropagatingtheirkind.’25Moreover,whileselec-tionhasbeencheckedinmanyways,itcontinuestooperateinoth-ers.Thusitworkstodevelopthebody,ascanbeseeninthefactthatcivilisedmenarestrongerthansavagesandhaveequalpowersofen-durance.Itfavourstheintellectuallyable,evenamongstthepoorestclasses.Andittendstoeliminatetheworstdispositions.Criminalsareexecutedorsenttojail,andsoareunabletopassontheirbadqualities.Theinsanekillthemselvesorareinstitutionalised.Violentmendieviolently,andprematurely.Therestlessemigrate.Thein-temperatedieyoungandthesexuallyprofligateareoftendiseased.Ontheotherhand,theverypoorandtherecklessalmostalwaysmarryearly,whilethosewhoarevirtuousenoughtowaituntiltheycansupportafamilyincomfortdosolateinlife.Theformerpro-ducemanymorechildrenwhoalso,beingbornduringtheirmoth-ers’primeoflife,tendtobemorephysicallyvigorous.QuotingGreg,Darwinregretsthattheviciousmembersofsocietytendtorepro-ducemorerapidlythanthevirtuous.Thereare,however,counterstothisprocesstoo:mortalityamongtheurbanpoorandamongwomenwhomarryataveryearlyageis(itseemsfortunately)high.Butiftheseandotherchecks‘donotpreventthereckless,thevicious,andtheotherwiseinferiormembersofsocietyfromincreasingataquickerratethanthebetterclassofmen’,Darwinwarns,thinkingofBagehotandHenryMaine,‘thenationwillretrograde,ashasoc-curredtooofteninthehistoryoftheworld.Wemustrememberthatprogressisnoinvariablerule.’26Thisprospectremainedalife-longconcern.Wallacenotedthatinoneoftheirlastconversations,Darwinhadexpressedgloomyviewsaboutthefuturebecause‘inourmoderncivilizationnaturalselectionhadnoplay,andthefittestdidnotsurvive’.Thosewinningwealtharenot‘thebestorthemostintelligent’and‘ourpopulationismorelargelyrenewedineachgen-erationfromthelowerthanfromthemiddleandupperclasses’.27ivthewayforwardButwhattodo?HereDarwin,likeGaltonandGreg,hadlittletosay.Advancingthewelfareofmankindisamost‘intricate’problem.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n226dianeb.paulPopulationpressurehasbeenanessentialelementinmankind’sad-vance.‘Naturalselectionfollowsfromthestruggleforexistence;andthisfromarapidrateofincrease.Itisimpossiblenotbitterlytoregret,butwhetherwiselyisanotherquestion,therateatwhichmantendstoincrease;forthisleadsinbarbaroustribestoinfanticideandmanyotherevils,andincivilisednationstoabjectpoverty,celibacy,andtothelatemarriagesoftheprudent.’28Butifmanhadnotbeensub-jecttosuchpressure,hewouldnothaveattainedhispresentrank.AtthecloseoftheDescent,Darwinconsidersthecontemporaryimplicationsofthisprinciple.Ontheonehand,hereasons,thosewhoareunabletoavoidabjectpovertyfortheirchildrenshouldnotreproduce.Butontheother,ifonlythosewhoareprudentrefrainfrommarriage,theinferiormembersofsocietywillsupplantthesu-perior.Malthusian‘moralrestraint’isthusacounter-selectivefactor.Heconcludeswithareminderthat:‘Man,likeeveryotheranimal,hasnodoubtadvancedtohispresenthighconditionthroughastrug-gleforexistenceconsequentonhisrapidmultiplication’andwarnsthattheadvancewillbehaltedunlessheremainssubjecttoseverestruggle.Otherwise,hewouldsoonsinkintoindolence,andthemorehighly-giftedmenwouldnotbemoresuccessfulinthebattleoflifethanthelessgifted.Henceournaturalrateofincrease,thoughleadingtomanyandobviousevils,mustnotbegreatlydiminishedbyanymeans.Thereshouldbeopencompetitionforallmen;andthemostableshouldnotbepreventedbylawsorcustomsfromsucceedingbestandrearingthelargestnumberofoffspring.29However,immediatelyaftervoicingthatclassically‘socialDarwinist’sentiment,henotesthatmoralqualitiesareadvancedmuchmorebyhabit,reason,learningandreligionthanbynaturalselection.Darwin’sviewsoninheritanceofpropertyandsuspicionoflabourunionsclearlymarkhimasaWhig.Hecondemnedprimogeniture,onthegroundsthatitenabledtheeldestsons,nomatterhowweakinmindorbody,tomarry,whileoftenpreventingsuperioryoungersonsfromdoinglikewise.Buthere,too,therewerecompensatorychecks.30Darwindidunambiguouslyfavourallowinginheritanceofmoderateamountsofwealth.HoldingcapitalaccumulationtobepartlyresponsibleforthesuccessofEuropeancolonisation,healsothoughtitnecessaryforcontinueddomesticprogress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin,socialDarwinismandeugenics227Darwinhimselfhadbeengenerouslysupportedbyhisfather,whoprovidednotjustanallowancebutDownHouseasagiftandalargeinheritanceathisdeathin1848.Combinedwithincomefromroy-alties,rents,andespeciallyinvestments,amarriagegift,andanin-heritancefromhisolderbrother,hisestateathisdeathwasworthoveraquarterofamillionpounds,apartfromatrustestablishedforhiswifeEmma.31Hisfamily’swealthhadenabledDarwintopursuehiscareer,anexperiencereflectedinhiscommentthat,whileinheri-tanceofpropertymeansthatchildrenwillnotstartatthesameplaceinthe‘raceforsuccess’,capitalaccumulationisneverthelessneces-saryforprogressbothintheartsandintellectualwork.Indeed,‘thepresenceofabodyofwell-instructedmen,whohavenottolabourfortheirdailybread,isimportanttoadegreewhichcannotbeover-estimated’.32Perhapsunsurprisingly,Wallace,whosefamilycouldnotaffordtokeephiminschoolpasttheageofthirteen,cametotheoppositeopinion.Hethoughtthatinheritanceinpropertyshouldbeabolished.ShortlyaftertheDescentappeared,HeinrichFick,alawprofessorattheUniversityofZurich,sentDarwinacopyofanessayhehadwrittenurgingrestrictionsonmarriageformenineligibleformil-itaryservice(tocounterthedysgeniceffectsofwar)andopposingegalitariansocialpolicies(sincetheyadvantagetheweak).Inreply,DarwinvoicedahopethatFickwouldatsomepointdiscusswhatheconsideredaseriousprobleminBritain:theinsistencebytradeunionsthatallworkmen,‘thegoodandbad,thestrongandweak’,shouldallworkthesamehoursforthesamewages.‘Theunionsarealsoopposedtopiece-work,–inshorttoallcompetition.’Hefears,too,thatCooperativeSocieties‘likewiseexcludecompetition’.Thisseemed‘agreatevilforthefutureprogressofmankind’.Butheneverpublishedsuchsentiments,perhapspartlyoutofcaution,butalsobe-causewithDarwintherewasalwaysan‘ontheotherhand’.Inthiscase,Darwincontinues:‘–Nevertheless,underanysystem,tem-perateandfrugalworkmenwillhaveanadvantageandleavemoreoffspringthanthedrunkenandreckless.’33NordidDarwinproposeanypracticalmeasurestocontrolhumanbreeding.Eveninhisownlife,Darwin’sworriesdidnottranslateintoaction.TheDarwin–Wedgwoodfamilywashighlyinbred,and,perhapsasaresult,experiencedmorethanitsshareofmentalandphysicalinfirmities.Charles,despiteanxietiesabouttheill-effectsofCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n228dianeb.paulinbreeding,didmarryhisfirstcousin,EmmaWedgwood.Moreover,hisnearlylifelongbattlewithill-healthbeganthreeyearsbeforehismarriage,andheworriedconstantlyaboutinflictinghereditaryill-nessonhischildren.Butthisdidnotinhibithimfromsiringnineofthem.34Inthepublicaswellasprivatesphere,Darwin’sanxietiesfoundlittletangibleexpression.LikeGalton,heurgedhisreaderstopayatleastasmuchattentiontothepedigreesoftheirprospec-tivematesastothoseoftheirhorsesanddogs.Forhewasemphaticabouttheoperationofsexualselectioninhumans.Malesselectedfemalesforphysicalbeautyandemotionalqualities,whilefemalesselectedmalesfortheirstrength,intellectandstatus.Thisexplainswhywomensurpassmenintenderness,intuitionandselflessness,buthavelessenergy,courageandintelligence.Darwinconcludedthat,althoughtheyshouldbeeducated,womencannotcompetesuc-cessfullywithmen,andare,bynature,bestsuitedtodomesticlife.ButalltheconcretesuggestionsforencouragingreproductionofthevaluablemembersofsocietyordiscouragingitbytheundesirablemembersseemedtoDarwineitherimpracticalormorallysuspect.Hethoughtitunlikelythattherecklesscouldbeconvincedtorefrainfrombreeding,andhewastoomuchofaWhigeventocontemplateusingthepowerofthestatetosegregatethemfromtherestofsociety.Nordidhethinkthatthegiftedwouldrespondtoappealstohavemorechildren.LikeGalton,hewaslefttohopethateducationwouldproduceachangeinvalues.UnlikeGalton,hedoesnotseemtohavebeenveryoptimisticaboutthechancesofsuchchangestakingplace.vsocialdarwinismandsocialistdarwinismDarwin’swaveringscertainlycontributedtothediversereadingsofDarwinism,asdidambiguitiesintheOriginaboutthelocusandmeaningofstruggle.Darwinhadstressedtheimportanceofstrugglewithinspecies,believingittobethemostseveresincetheseindivid-ualslivedinthesameplaces,atethesamefoodandfacedthesamedangers.Advocatesoflaissez-fairetendedtofollowsuit.ButDarwinalsonotedthatheusedtheterm‘StruggleforExistenceinalargeandmetaphoricalsense,includingdependenceofonebeingonanother’.35Someofhisfollowersreadhimasdeprecatingintra-specificstrug-gle,atleastamongthesocialspecies,andasemphasisingthevalueofCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin,socialDarwinismandeugenics229within-groupcooperationinstead–areadingbolsteredbyDarwin’saccountofhumanevolution.Mutualisticreadingstendedtoappealtosocialists,anarchistsandliberalreformers,aswellas(orincluding)thosewhoappropriatedDarwintoargueforracial,nationalorclasssuperiority.Ofcoursetherewasnoneedtochoose,andmanywrit-ersinvokednaturalselectiontoargueforlaissez-faireathomeandimperialconquestabroad.36Certainly,apologistsfordog-eat-dogcapitalismeasilyfoundelementstotheirliking.Asearlyas4May1860,DarwinfamouslyremarkedinalettertoCharlesLyell:‘IhavereceivedinaManchesterNewspaperratheragoodsquib,showingthatIhaveproved“mightisright,”&thereforethatNapoleonisright,&everycheatingTradesmanisoftenright.’ItisnotablethatthereferencewastoacommentaryontheOriginthatappearedintheManchesterGuardianunderthetitle‘NationalandIndividualRapacityVindi-catedbytheLawsofNature.’37Thecommentaryobviouslyinvolvedacrudeextrapolation.Nevertheless,theOriginwaseasilyappropri-atedforsuchpurposes,asthewritingsofGregandotherearlycom-mentatorsattest.ThatreadingofDarwinism–asabiologisticjustificationforlaissez-faireandcolonialism–iswhatisgenerallyimpliedbytheterm‘socialDarwinism’.ItwasatermthatwouldhavebaffledDarwin.InVictorianEngland,scientiststookforgrantedthatbio-logicalfactsmatteredforsocialtheoryandpolicy.AsJamesMoorehasnoted:‘“Darwinismus”inGermanyand“Darwinism”intheEnglish-speakingworldquitesufficedtoexpressDarwin’sinten-tions,allhisallies’hopes,andallhiscritics’fears.’38Coinedaroundtheturnofthecentury,thephrase‘socialDarwin-ism’waspopularisedinthemid-1940sbytheAmericanhistorianRichardHofstadter.Ithaseversincebeenatermofabuse,appliedtopeople,policiesandideasofwhichthewriterdisapproved.(Peopledonotidentifythemselvesas‘socialDarwinists’.)ANewDealliberal,Hofstadter’stargetwaslaissez-faireconservatism.Inhishistoricalaccount,socialDarwinismwasanessentiallyconservativeideologyandsocialmovement,whichappropriatedthetheoryofevolutionbynaturalselectiontosupportunrestrictedlaissez-faireathomeandcolonialismabroad.Itostensiblyflourishedinthelatenine-teenthcentury,reachingitszenithinGilded-AgeAmerica,whereitappealednotjusttoprofessionalsocialthinkers,buttoawideCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n230dianeb.paulswathofthemiddleclass.Itsproponentsheldthatitwasonlynatu-ralthat‘thebestcompetitorsinacompetitivesituationwouldwin’,thatthisprocesswouldleadtocontinuing(ifslow)improvement,andthateffortstohastenimprovementthroughsocialreformweredoomedtofailure.39ButasHofstadterhimselfacknowledged,theOriginwasalsoap-propriatedforquitedifferentends.SocialistsfoundinDarwinismsupportforreligiousscepticismandbeliefintheinevitabilityofchange.Some(butnotMarx)alsofoundinhistheoryadirectbasisforsocialistprinciples.Onesocialiststrategywastoelidethestrug-gleforexistencewiththestruggleamongclasses,arguingthattheproletariatwouldinevitablytriumph.Anotherwastoclaimthatthestrugglenowwasamongsocieties,nationsorraces,abattlethatwouldbeunderminedbyclassconflict.Athirdwastode-emphasiseindividualstruggle,findinginDarwinismabasisforaltruisticandcooperativebehaviour.(Occasionally,thesethemeswouldcombine,asinAugustBebel’sDieFrauandderSozialismus,whicharguesthatafiercestruggleforexistencewillprevailuntilthevictoryoftheproletariat,afterwhichsocialsolidaritywillreign.)AnarchistssuchasPrincePeterKropotkinandliberalreformersintheUSandBritainalsode-emphasisedindividualstruggle,findingintheOriginsupportforaholisticviewofnatureasa‘tangledbank’characterisedbyacomplexwebofrelations.OftendrawingasmuchonHerbertSpencerasDarwin,theyarguedthatthestruggleforex-istencewasnotprimarilyaboutcombat,atleastamongmembersoftheirowngroup,butcoexistence.40SomecitedDarwin’sargumentintheDescentthatthedevelopmentofreason,feelingsofsympa-thy,andcooperationwerekeytohumanevolution.Moreover,byemphasisingtheLamarckianelementsinDarwin,theywereabletoclaimthathumanscouldescapethegripofbiologyandcreatesocialorganisationswhichfostereddesirabletraits.Thesofter,anti-deterministicviewofDarwinismwasalsosharedbythe‘peacebiologists’.Darwinismwas,ofcourse,usedtojus-tifywarfareandimperialconquest.Inthedominantmotif,naturewasbrutalandhumanswerebeasts.Humanswerepartofanaturalworld,whichischaracterisedbyarelentlessstruggleforexistence,inwhichthestrongest,fleetest,mostcunningprevail.Humanbe-haviourreflectsman’sanimalorigins.Belligerenceandterritorialityareineradicableinstincts,deeplyrootedinhumannature.HumansCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin,socialDarwinismandeugenics231are‘fightingapes’,asnineteenth-centurypopularisershadit,andwaranessentialpartoftheevolutionaryprocess.BritishanthropologistSirArthurKeithfamouslyasserted:‘Naturekeepsherhumanor-chardhealthybypruning;warisherpruning-hook.’41Moreover,iflifeiswarfare,thendisciplineandobediencearecardinalvirtues.42ButpacifistsalsofoundresourcesinDarwin.Theyarguedthatmur-derandwarwererareamonganimalswithintheirownspecies.Onlymanregularlykilledhisownkind.Theychallengedtheassumptionthatbeastswerebestial,citingDarwin’sexamplesofcooperationamonganimals,aswellasevidenceoftheirintelligence,loyalty,bravery,affectionandself-sacrificingbehaviour.AndtheycouldciteDarwin’scommentsinthesecondeditionoftheDescent,wherehecriticisedconscriptionandwaronthegroundsthattheformerpre-ventedhealthymalesfrommarryingduringtheirprime,whilethelatterexposedthemtotheriskofearlydeath.Followingthislineofargument,someanti-militaristsclaimedthatevenifwarhadoncebeenaprogressiveforce,itwasnowdysgenic.43InBritain,theslaugh-teroffityoungmenintheFirstWorldWarledmanyDarwinianstorethinktheevolutionaryvalueofwarfareandultimatelytorejecttheideathatitwasbeneficial.44Darwinismwassimilarlyusedtolegitimateeveryviewofwomen’sabilitiesandappropriateroles.Darwin’sauthoritywasin-vokedinsupportoftheclaimthatwomen’splacewasinthehome,nottheschoolortheworkplace.45Butthetheoryofsexualselection,whichforDarwinaccountedforgenderdifferences,wasalsoturnedtoradicaluses.Socialistsandfeministscouldarguethat,incontem-porarysociety,sexualselectionhadbeenthwarted.Menwhowerestupidandvicioushadnotroublefindingmates,aslongastheywererich.Womenwereforcedbysocialcircumstancestochooseashusbandsmenwhocouldsupportthem,howeverinferiortheirpersonalqualities.AcharacterinLookingBackward,aninfluentialnovelbytheAmericanutopiansocialistEdwardBellamy,explainedthat,inthenewBostonoftheyear2000,sexualselectionhasfullplay.Thuspovertynolongerinduces‘womentoacceptasthefa-thersoftheirchildrenmenwhomtheyneithercanlovenorrespect.Wealthandranknolongerdivertattentionfrompersonalqualities.Goldnolonger“gildsthestraitenedforeheadofthefool”.Thegiftsofperson,mind,anddisposition...aresureoftransmissiontoposterity.’46Manysocialradicals–includingWallaceinBritainandCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n232dianeb.paulVictoriaWoodhullandCharlottePerkinsGilmanintheUS–arguedthatthecontinuedsubjugationofwomenthwartssexualselectionandthusendangersthefutureoftherace.47vidarwinism,lamarckismandsocietyThemeaningof‘socialDarwinism’ismuddiednotjustbytheuseofDarwinismtojustifyavarietyofexistingorproposedsocialarrange-ments,butbythefactthatmanyadvocatesoflaissez-fairerejectedtheprincipleofnaturalselectionorminimiseditssignificance.In-deed,somestereotypical‘socialDarwinists’preferredthetheory,as-sociatedwithLamarck,thatorganismsacquirenewcharacteristicsastheresultofaprocessofactiveadaptationtotheirenvironments.These‘neo-Lamarckians’includedtheBritishphilosopherHerbertSpencer,whoarguedthatunfetteredeconomiccompetitionwouldculltheunfitandalsoactasaspurtoimprovement.ForSpencer,competitionfunctionedtomakecreaturesworkharder,andthustoexercisetheirorgansandfaculties(incontrastwithDarwin,forwhomcompetitionworkedmainlytospreadminoritytraitsthrough-outapopulation).Thementalpowers,skillsandtraitsofcharacterfosteredbythisstrugglewouldbetransmittedtofuturegenerations,resultinginconstantmaterialandmoralprogress.Ultimately(andinevitably)theevolutionaryprocesswouldproduceaperfectsocietycharacterisedbystability,harmony,peace,altruismandcooperation.Landwouldbeheldincommon,womenwouldhavethesamerightsasmenandgovernmentwouldbecomesuperfluous,andultimatelydisappear.48Inthemeantime,thestateshoulddonothingtoallevi-atethesufferingsoftheunfit.Afterall,asSpencerwrotein1850,‘thewholeeffortofnatureistogetridofsuch,tocleartheworldofthem,tomakeroomforbetter’.49PeterBowlerarguesthatSpencer’semphasisonthevalueofself-helpwasmuchclosertothespiritofcompetitivecapital-ismthanDarwin’smorefatalisticprincipleofnaturalselectionofchancevariations.50Inanycase,manysocialtheorists,especiallyinAmerica,owedmore–sometimesmuchmore–toSpencerthantoDarwin.51Indeed,in1907,theAmericansociologistLesterFrankWarddeclaredthathehad‘neverseenanydistinctivelyDarwinianprincipleappealedtointhediscussionof“socialDarwinism”’.52(Morerecently,AntonelloLaVergatajokinglysuggestedthatCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin,socialDarwinismandeugenics233‘DarwinwasoneoftheveryfewSocialDarwinistswhowasreallyaDarwinian’.53)GiventhatSpencerbothminimisedtheroleofnaturalselectionanddevelopedmuchofhistheorybefore1859,isitreasonabletoclas-sifyhimandhisfollowersas‘socialDarwinists’?Orifthetermhasvalueatall,shoulditbereservedforthosewhoexplicitlyinvokedDarwin’sowntheory?Thatissueiscomplicatedbythefactthatwhatcountsas‘Darwin’stheory’inthelatenineteenthcenturyisfarfromobvious,bothbecauseDarwin’sownviewsshiftedovertime,andbecause‘Darwinism’wasoftenemployedinterchangeablywith‘evolutionism’.Inparticular,theboundarybetweenLamarckismandDarwinismwasblurred.ManyscientistswhodownplayedtheroleofnaturalselectionwerenonethelessconsideredDarwinians;indeed,Darwinhimselfaccordedsignificant(andovertime,increasing)scopetoLamarckianfactors.Theconfusedrelationshipbetween‘Darwinism’and‘Lamarckism’isnicelyillustratedbyBagehot’sPhysicsandPolitics,whichwassubtitled‘OrThoughtsontheAp-plicationofthePrinciplesof“NaturalSelection”and“Inheritance”toPoliticalSociety’.AccordingtoBagehot,thetraitsfavouredinwarfareareproducedbyaLamarckianprocessinwhichchangingdesiresproducechangesinhabits,whicharetransmittedtothenextgeneration:‘itisthesilenttoilofthefirstgenerationthatbecomesthetransmittedaptitudeofthenext’.Indeed,historyis‘asciencetoteachthelawoftendencies–createdbythemind,andtransmittedbythebody–whichactuponandinclinethewillofmanfromagetoage’.54Thuseffortstostipulateadefinitionof‘socialDarwinism’arefrus-tratedbothbyDarwinism’sassociationwithcontradictorycausesandthelackofspecificallyDarwiniancontentintheviewsofmanyclassical‘socialDarwinists’.Historianshaveweightedthesefactorsdifferently,resultinginaplethoraofdefinitions,rangingfromtheverynarrow–theconventionalidentificationof‘socialDarwinism’withthelegitimationoflaissez-fairecapitalism–totheveryexpansive–itsapplicationtoanysocialuseofDarwin’sthe-ory(oreventoanysocialuseofevolutionarytheory,irrespectiveofitsdebttoDarwin).Steeringamiddlecoursearehistorianswhorecognisethemultivalentcharacterofthetheory,butbe-lievetheycanidentifysomecoredoctrineunitingthevariousstrands.55CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n234dianeb.paulTheabsenceofagreementonthemeaningofsocialDarwinism(orevenwhetherithasone)assuresthattherewillbedifferentviewsofitsrelationtoeugenics.IfsocialDarwinismisequatedwithlaissez-faire,aprogrammetointervenewithindividualreproductivedeci-sionsmayseemitsobverse.Ifthetermappliestocollectivistaswellasindividualistideologies,eugenicsismoreplausiblyviewedasoneformofsocialDarwinism.56Butatleastthereisvirtualcon-sensusamonghistoriansthateugenicswaslinkedinsomeimportantwaytoDarwin’stheory.EvenRobertBannister,whodismissessocialDarwinismasamyth,acceptsthat,‘theideaofpruninghumanitylikesomanyroseswasindeedalogicaldeductionfromtheOriginofSpecies,ifonecouldstiflethemoralsensibilitiesthattroubledDarwinhimself’.57viinature,nurtureandeugenicsDarwinandhisnineteenth-centurycompatriotsworriedthat,iftraitsmakingforsocialsuccessandfailurewereheritable,andifthefailureswereproducingmorechildrenthanthesuccessful,theresultwouldbedegeneration.ButinDarwin’sday,theviewthatheredityheldthekeytosocialsuccesswasnotwidelyaccepted.Indeed,Darwinhimself,whileclaimingtohavebeenconvertedtoGalton’sperspectiveontheimportanceofinheritedintellect,contin-uedtobelievethatzealandhardworkalsomattered.Moreover,whileLamarckismreigned,hereditarianbeliefsdidnotnecessarilyimplysupportforprogrammesofselectivebreeding.Eventhosewhoas-sumedthatsocialproblemswereduetobadheredityoftenconcludedthatthesolutionlayinsocialreform.AslongastheLamarckianviewheldsway,itmadenosensetocounterposenatureandnurture.Bytheturnofthecentury,however,Lamarckism–whilefarfromdead,eveninscientificcircles–wasindecline.Acorollaryoftheincreasinglypopularviewthathereditywashard(thatis,non-Lamarckian)wasthebeliefthattheonlysolutiontosocialprob-lemswastodiscouragereproductionbythosewithundesirabletraits,whileencouragingreproductionbysociety’sworthierelements.In1883,Galtoncoinedtheword‘eugenics’todescribethisprogramme.Itwouldsoonacquireawideandenthusiasticfollowing,whichcutacrosstheusualpoliticaldivisions.Middle-classpeopleofev-erypoliticalpersuasion–conservative,liberalandsocialist–werealarmedbytheapparentlyprofligatebreedingofwhatinBritainCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin,socialDarwinismandeugenics235wascalledthe‘socialresiduum’.Galton,GregandDarwinlackedanyrealevidencetosupporttheirintuitionsthattheleastableel-ementsinsocietywereoutbreedingthecapable.However,araftofreportsanddemographicstudiesseemedtoconfirmtheirworstfears.InBritain,thelargenumberofrecruitsrejectedformilitaryserviceintheBoerWar,andstatisticalstudiesdemonstratingacorrelationbetweenlargefamiliesandpoorsocialconditionsweretakenasproofthatthenationwasdeteriorating.ThisdisturbingtrendwasexacerbatedbytheFirstWorldWar,whichresultedinthedeathsofthefittestyoungmen,andwaswidelyviewedasaeugenicdisaster.Howtocounterthistrend?Galtonhadbeenprincipallyconcernedtoencouragethetalentedtohavelargefamilies;thatis,withwhathetermed‘positive’eugenics.Butinthetwentiethcentury,‘negative’measurescametoseemmuchmoreurgent.IntheUnitedStates,CanadaandmuchofNorthernEurope,aswellasBritain,thecentralquestionwashowbesttodiscouragebreedingbymoralandmentaldefectives.Inthe1870s,whenDarwinwrotetheDescent,educationandmoralsuasionappearedeventomostalarmistsastheonlyaccept-ablemeansofpreventingtheswampingofthebetterbytheworse.Butbytheturnofthecentury,newviewsofheredityhadconvergedwithaheightenedsenseofdangerandchangingattitudestowardsthestatetomakeactiveinterventionmoreacceptable.DarwinandGregweretooimbuedwithWhigdistrustofgovernmenttoproposethatitrestricthumanbreeding,andevenGaltonrealisedthatpublicopinionwouldnotacceptthis.Asacommitmenttolaissez-fairegavewaytoacceptanceofcollectivist-orientedreform,effortstointerveneactivelywithreproductionintheinterestsofthecommunityacquiredgreaterlegitimacy.Tothosewhohadfaithindisinterestedexpertiseandthevirtuesofstateplanning,controlofbreedingseemedonlycommonsense.58Initially,interventiontooktheformofsegregationof‘defectives’duringtheirreproductiveyears.Sinceinstitutionalisationwasexpensive,sterilisation(vasectomyinmen,tuballigationinwomen)becameanincreasinglypopularalternative,especiallywiththeadventoftheworld-wideeconomicdepressionofthe1930s.Sterilisationwasopposed,alongwithcontraceptionandabortion,bytheCatholicChurchand,inBritain,bytheLabourParty(whichsawitsmembersaspotentialtargets).Butby1940sterilisationlawshadCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n236dianeb.paulbeenpassedbythirtyAmericanstates,threeCanadianprovinces,aSwisscanton,Germany,Estonia,alloftheScandinavianandmostoftheEasternEuropeancountries,Cuba,TurkeyandJapan.(However,sterilisationmayhaveflourishedinsomelocaleswithoutbenefitoflaw,andimposingstatutorycontrolwassometimesintendedtolimititsinformalpractice.)59IntheUnitedStates,advocatesofimmigrationrestrictionarguedthatnewcomersfromSouthernandEasternEuropewerebothbiologicallyinferiorto‘oldstock’Americansandrapidlymultiplying.In1924,theImmigrationRestrictionActsharplyreducedthetotalnumberofallowableentrants,and,throughadoptionofaquotasystem,reducedtoatricklenewentrantsfromRussia,Poland,theBalkansandItaly.60ThemostextensiveandbrutaleugenicmeasureswereadoptedinGermany.The1933LawforthePreventionofGeneticallyDiseasedOffspring,passedsoonafterHitler’sascenttopower,en-compassedawiderangeofostensiblyheritableconditions,andap-pliedalsotothenon-institutionalised;itultimatelyaffectedabout400,000people(comparedwithabout60,000intheUnitedStates).ButGermanRassenhygieneinvolvedmuchmorethanamassiveprogrammeofsterilisation.TheNurembergLawsbarredJewish–Germanmarriages.TheLebensbornprogrammeencouragedracially‘pure’Germanwomen,bothsingleandmarried,tobearthechildrenofSSofficers.TheAktionT-4programmeanditsvarioussequels‘euthanised’(theeuphemismformurderbygassing,starvationandlethalinjection)upto200,000ofthecountry’sinstitutionalisedmen-tallyandphysicallydisabled,sometimeswiththetacitconsentoftheirfamilies.61Thepenalsystemwasreformedsothatmanyminoroffenderswerepunishedwithdeathinordertocounterthedysgeniceffectsofwar.62ThesepoliciesofruthlessselectionwereapreludetoexterminationofJewsandotherracialandpoliticalundesirables.Effortstomaintainracialpurityandridthecountryof‘uselesseaters’oftenemployedDarwinianrhetoric:survivalofthefittest,selec-tionandcounterselection.Thatlanguagehadwideresonance,forDarwinismwasparticularlypopularinGermany.viiifromdarwintohitler?NowheredidtheOriginhaveagreaterinitialimpactthanGermany,wherethebookappearedintranslationwithinayearofitsCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin,socialDarwinismandeugenics237publicationinEnglish.ManyscientistsendorsedDarwin’stheory,whichwasalsowidelypopularised,mosteffectivelybytheUni-versityofJenazoologist,ErnstHaeckel.BothliberalsandMarxistswereenthusiastic.Indeed,KarlMarx’sfriendWilhelmLiebknechtre-portedthat,followingpublicationoftheOrigin,heandhiscomrades‘spokeformonthsofnothingelsebutDarwinandtherevolutionizingpowerofhisscientificconquests’.63TheresponseinGermanywassoenthusiasticthatin1868Darwinwrotethat,‘thesupportwhichIreceivefromGermanyismychiefgroundforhopingthatourviewswillultimatelyprevail’.64Inthe1860sand1870s,thepoliticalusesofDarwinisminGermanyhadbeenpredominantlysubversive.65GiventhefailureoftheRevolutionof1848,thearistocracyandtheCatholicChurchre-mainedpowerfulforces,especiallyinPrussia,themostimportantoftheGermanstates.SocialistsofallstripessawthatDarwin’stheorycouldbeappropriatedbothtoarguefortheinevitabilityofprogres-sivechangeandagainstreligion.Marxiansocialists(includingMarxhimself)wereoftenuncomfortablewiththeMalthusianelementinDarwinism.AswithmanyofDarwin’sinterpreterselsewhere,theytendedtodownplaynaturalselectioninfavourofLamarckianandotherevolutionarymechanisms,andalsotodenythatbiologicallawscouldbedirectlyappliedtosociety.OtherMarxistsandmanynon-MarxistsreadsocialismdirectlyfromDarwinism.ButirrespectiveoftheirspecificinterpretationsofDarwin,nearlyallsocialistssawhimasanally.WorksonhistheoryflowedfromtheGermansocialistpress;itwasthemostpopularnon-fictiontopicamongworkers.66In-deed,workersweregenerallymoreinclinedtowardsscientificthaneconomicandpoliticaltitles,andvastlymoreinterestedinDarwinthanthedifficult-to-understandMarx.67TheembraceofDarwinismbytheLeftledapuzzledDarwintocommentin1879:‘Whatafool-ishideaseemstoprevailinGermanyontheconnectionbetweenSocialismandEvolutionthroughNaturalSelection.’68LiberalsalsoviewedDarwinismasanallyintheirwarwiththeCatholicChurch,themonarchyandtheJunkers(conservativenobleland-owners).Haeckel’spopularwritingsofthisperiodexpresspri-marilyliberalidealsandaspirations:laissezfaire,anti-clericalism,intellectualfreedom,anti-militarism,anendtoinheritedprivi-lege.Thenobilityhasnorighttofeelprivileged,heargues,giventhatallhumanembryos–ofnoblesaswellascommoners–areCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n238dianeb.paulindistinguishableintheirearlystagesfromthoseofdogsandothermammals,whilewarcausesthedeathsofthebravestandstrongestGermanyouths.69The‘MonistLeague’Haeckelfoundedwasapacifistorganisation.70Buttherehadalwaysbeenanauthoritarianandnationalistele-mentintheGermanliberalprogramme,whichgaveitadistinctivecharacter.Afterthefailureofthe1848revolution,Germanliberalssupportednotonlyeconomiclaissezfairebutastrongstateandna-tionalunity,whichtheythoughtfeasibleonlyundertheleadershipofauthoritarianPrussia.71OttovonBismarck,Prussia’schiefminister,alsowonliberalapprovalwithhisKulturkampfofthe1870sagainsttheCatholicChurch.TheachievementofnationalunityunderBis-marckconvergedwiththegrowingpoweroftheworkingclass,espe-ciallyaftertheunificationofthetwoworking-classpartiesin1875,tomoveliberalsfurthertotheright.Eveninthe1860s,Haeckelhaddenouncedtheuseofmodernmedicinetoenablethediseasedtosurviveandpassontheirafflictions.By1877,hewasengagedinaviciousdebatewithRudolfVirchowovertheconnectionbetweenDarwinismandsocialism,assertingthat‘ifthisEnglishhypothesisistobecomparedtoanydefinitepoliticaltendency...thatten-dencycanonlybearistocratic,certainlynotdemocratic,andleastofallsocialist’.72(AfterreadinganEnglishtranslationofHaeckel’santi-Virchowpolemic,Darwinwrotetotheauthorthat‘Iagreewithallofit.’73)GermanDarwinismwouldbecomeincreasingly–thoughneveruniformly–reactionary.Bythe1890s,itwasmostoftenreadtoim-plythenecessityofcompetitivestruggle,especiallyamonggroups,andlinkedtoracism,imperialismandsuppressionofworking-classdemands.Modernsocietywasnowseenascounter-selective;de-generationcouldbereversedonlythroughtheactiveeffortsofthestate.In1892,whenBismarckvisitedtheUniversityofJena,hewasembracedbyHaeckel,whoawardedhimanhonorarydoctorate.74Particularlyrevealingistheoutcomeofthefamousessaycompe-titionsponsoredbytheGermanmunitionsmanufacturerandam-ateurzoologist,FriedrichAlfredKrupp.In1900,Kruppofferedthehugeprizeof10,000marksforthebestessayonthequestion:‘Whatcanwelearnfromthetheoryofevolutionaboutdomesticpoliti-caldevelopmentandstatelegislation?’Deeplyhostiletosocialism,hisaimwasapparentlytodemonstratethatDarwinismwasnotaCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin,socialDarwinismandeugenics239threattothestate.75Mostofthesixtyentrants(includingtheforty-fourfromGermany)readDarwinaslegitimisingstateintervention,bothintheeconomyandbreeding.Onlyafewessayswerewrittenfromasocialistperspective,andalonelyonefromaclassicalliberalperspective.76WhereasinBritain,theFirstWorldWarprovokedmanyDarwinianstoreevaluatetheevolutionaryconsequencesofwarfare,inGermany,itreinforcedtheviewofwarasnature’swayofensuringthesurvivalofthefittest.Asarepresentativeoftheneutralcommis-sionforcivilianrelief,theAmericanevolutionistVernonKelloggwasassignedtotheHeadquartersoftheGermanarmyinFranceandBelgium.Fromthisunusualvantagepoint,heobservedthatGermanofficersopenlydefendedaggressivemilitarismasacorol-laryofDarwinism:ThecreedoftheAllmachtofanaturalselectionbasedonviolentandcom-petitivestruggleisthegospeloftheGermanintellectuals;allelseisillusionandanathema....aswiththedifferentantspecies,struggle–bitter,ruthlessstruggle–istheruleamongthedifferenthumangroups.Thisstrugglenotonlymustgoon,forthatisthenaturallaw,butitshouldgoon,sothatthisnaturallawmayworkoutinitscruel,inevitablewaythesalvationofthehumanspecies.77Inthedevastatingaftermathofthatwar,eugenicscametobeseenascrucialtocollectivesurvival.Germaneugenicistshadearlierfo-cusedonpositiveeugenics–effortstoencouragebreedingbythemoredesirabletypes.Butastheeconomiccrisisdeepened,thecostofcaringforthedisabledinhospitalsandasylumsbecameanobses-sion,andtheracistelementineugenicscametothefore.TheSocietyforRacialHygienewasoncedominatedbytechnocraticelitists,whostruggledwithNordicsupremacists.Bythe1920s,thelatterwereintheascendancy.Thus,asmanyhistorianshavestressed,thepathfromDarwintoHitlerwashardlyastraightone.78InGermany,aselsewhere,evolu-tionarytheoryprovidedaresourceforgroupswithdisparateagendas,includingsocialistsandotherradicals,free-marketandcollectivist-orientedliberals,Fascists,eugenicistswhoopposedracismandracialpurists.Indeed,itwasthevarietyofinterestswhichDarwinisminitiallyservedinGermanythatexplainswhythetheorywassowidelyandenthusiasticallyembraced.ThecontinuingassociationCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n240dianeb.paulofevolutionismwithprogressivecauses,especiallyanti-militarism,explainswhyin1935theNazisorderedthattheworksofnearlyallthepopularDarwinists,includingHaeckel,bepurgedfromlibraries.79ThatisnottosaythatDarwinismwasinfinitelyplastic.InGer-manyaselsewhere,thesocialandreligiousviewsofclassicalcon-servativesmadeDarwinismhardtodigest;theCatholicChurchinparticularremainedapotentfoe.ButnearlyeveryothergroupfoundwhatitneededinDarwin.Ofcoursetheirabilitytoimposetheirparticularreadingdependedonspecificsocialconditions.Intheim-mediateaftermathoftheOrigin,Darwinismwasgenerallyreadasunderminingreligionand,forliberals,aslegitimisinglaissez-faire.Bytheturnofthecentury,itwasseentojustifycollectivist-orientedsocialreform,colonialismandeugenics.Whiletherewerenationalvariations,thetrendfromindividualisttocollectivistreadingsofDarwinwasgeneral.ButonlyinGermanywouldDarwincometobewidelyreadasvindicatinganactiveprogrammeofexterminationofthephysicallyandracially‘unfit’–demonstratinghowcrucialiscontext.Darwin’smetaphoricalstyleandtheambiguitiesinhiswrit-ingsmademanyreadingspossible,butparticularsocialandpoliticalcircumstancesdeterminedwhichreadingwouldprevail.ixconclusionDarwinwasnotanoriginalsocialthinker.Hiswritingsreflectas-sumptionsconventionalforamanofhistimeandclass.Virtuallyeverythinghehadtosayonsocialmatters–concerningthevalueofpopulationpressureandinheritanceofproperty,thenaturalnessofthesexualdivisionoflabour,andtheinevitabilityofEuropeanex-pansion–canbefoundinMalthus,Spencer,Wallace,Greg,Bagehotandothercontemporarywriters.Darwin’simportanceforsocialthoughtandinstitutionslayelse-where.First,publicationoftheOriginwasacrucialstepontheroadtomoderneugenics.Darwinaswellashisreadersassumedthatnatu-ralselectionresultedintheconstantimprovementoforganicbeings.Thusprogressdependsonstruggleforexistence.Whenappliedtohumans,itfollowedthatinterferencewiththisstrugglewouldproveharmful.Ifimprovementweretocontinue,itwouldeitherbenecessarytowithdrawthehumanitarianmeasuresthatinterferedCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin,socialDarwinismandeugenics241withselection,ortocountertheireffectsthroughaprogrammeofartificialselection,orboth.Thealternativewasdegeneration.ThatwastheconclusionreachedbymostDarwiniansinthedecadefollowingpublicationoftheOrigin,andalsobyDarwin,aftermuchwavering,intheDescentofMan.Darwinhimselfoptedforlivingwiththebadconsequencesofthelesscapableoutbreedingwhathecalled‘thebetterclassofmen’.Intheend,hecouldsanctionneitherawithdrawalofcharitynoractiveinterventionwithhumanbreeding.Darwinwasthusnota‘eugenicist’,orcertainlynotafully-fledgedone.Buthistheoryfuelledfearsthatmadetheneedforaprogrammeofselectivebreedingseemdire.ItisnocoincidencethatGalton,thefounderofmoderneugenics,washiscousin–orthatLeonardDarwin,PresidentoftheEugenicsSocietyinBritaininthe1910sand1920s,washisson.Eugenicswasonlytranslatedintoapracticalprogrammewhenitwaslinkedtomoderngenetics,evidenceofthehighfertilityofthoseatthebottomofthesocialscale,andamorepositiveviewofthefunc-tionsofthestate.Supportforeugenicshaswaxedandwanedoverthesucceedingyears,buttheconcernsthatinspiredithaveneverdisap-peared.Forexample,theauthorsofTheBellCurve(1994)warnofthethreattomodernsocietyrepresentedbytheprofligatebreedingofanunderclass.Theyattributesocialfailuretolowintelligence,whichtheybelieveislargelydeterminedbyheredity.Shouldmembersofthisunderclasscontinuetobreedatamorerapidratethantheirin-tellectualsuperiors,thegeneralcognitivelevelofthepopulationwillinevitablydecline,resultinginahostofsocialproblems.80Thehugesalesofthebookindicatethatoldfearslinger,andareeasilyignited.Darwinismalsocontinuestofurnisharesourceforadvocatesofdiversepoliticalandsocialcauses.Intheworksofsomeprofessionalandmanypopularsociobiologistsandevolutionarypsychologists,itisdeployedtoargueforthenaturalnessofterritoriality,competitionandtraditionalgenderroles.OthersreadinDarwintheoppositemessages.ThephilosopherPeterSingerhasrecentlycalledforanewDarwinianLeft,which‘takesseriouslythefactthatweareevolvedanimals’.81Itshouldacknowledgethatthereisarealhumannature,whichconstrainsourbehaviour.ThisnatureincludescompetitivebutalsosocialandcooperativetendenciesonwhichtheLeftcanbuild.(Singeralsohopesthatrecognitionofourcontinuitywithotheranimalswillmakeuslesslikelytoexploitthem.)CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n242dianeb.paulAsaresource,hasDarwinismmattered?In1906,GrahamWallasreportedonaclergyman’sresponsetohisremarkthatmanypeoplenowacceptedDarwin’sviewofhumanevolution.‘Yes’,hesaid,‘weallacceptit,andhowlittledifferenceitmakes.’82Somescholarsagreethatitsactualimpacthasbeenslight.Intheirview,Darwinismmerelyprovidedwindow-dressingforsocialtheoriesthatpredateditandwouldsurelyhaveflourishedinitsabsence.83Thus,writingonBritishimperialisminthelatenineteenthcentury,PaulCrooknotesthat‘Darwinisticthemeswereusedprimarilyasslogans,propaganda,crudetheater,culturalextravaganza’,andthatitispossibletofindonlyaveryfew‘serious’theoreticalworks(andthoselittleread)linkingDarwinismtoempire.84ItisdoubtlesstruethatmanypopularisersmisunderstoodDarwin.(Darwin’sownambiguities,hesitationsandwaveringsmadethateasy.)Somemightnotevenhavereadhim.ThatwouldalsobetrueforMarx,Freudandmanyothermajorthinkers.Butthesocialpowerofatheoryhasneverdependedonadetailedorcorrectunderstandingbyitsinterpreters.Inparticularcontexts,theDarwiniandiscourseofstruggleandselectiongaveoldideasaboutcompetition,raceandgenderanewcredibility.InGermany,asthehistorianRichardEvanshasargued,whattheNazisobtainedfromDarwinwasnotacoherentsetofideasorwell-developedideologybutalanguage.TherhetoricassociatedwiththeNazivariantofsocialDarwinismwaseffectiveinjustifyingNazipolicies,forit‘helpedreconcilethosewhousedit,andforwhomithadbecomeanalmostautomaticwayofthink-ingaboutsociety,toacceptthepoliciestheNazisadvocatedandinmanycasestocollaboratewillinglyinputtingthemintoeffect’.85ItistruethateverysocialideajustifiedbyreferencetoDarwinpredatedhiswork,andthatmanywhoinvokedhimlackedafirmgraspofhisviews.Darwinism’smaincontributiontosocialtheoryhasbeentopopularisecertaincatchwords.Butthisisnottominimiseitsim-portance.Today,asinthepast,rhetoriccanbeapotentresource.notes1.Bryan[1924]1967,547–8.2.Dennett1995,393.3.Theexhibitorsfurtherclaimthat‘Darwinpassionatelyopposedsocialinjusticeandoppression’,thathewouldhavebeenappalledCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin,socialDarwinismandeugenics243‘toseehisnameattachedtoopposingideologies’,andthat‘so-calledSocialDarwinisttheoriesareagrossmisreadingoftheideasfirstdescribedintheOriginofSpeciesandappliedinmodernbiology’.http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/darwinism.php.Phrasesareemphasisedintheoriginal.4.Greene1981remainsthemostbalancedaccountofDarwin’ssocialviews.5.C.H.Smith1991,13–14.6.Wallace[1864]1991,21.7.Galton1865.8.QuotedinJones1998,9.9.Greg1868.10.Bagehot[1872]1974,47–8,55–8.11.Wallace1870.12.Marchant1916,199;R.J.Richards1987,186.13.Durant,1985,293–4;DesmondandMoore1991,579.Forfurthercom-plementarydiscussionofGregandWallaceonthesetopics,seeRichards,thisvolume.14.SeeKeynes1988,45,58,79–80,173–4;Barrettetal.,1987,CharlesDarwin’sNotebooks,NotebookC,MSp.154–hereafterC154;Gruber,1981,18.15.C.Darwin[1860]1962,433–4.16.SeeKeynes1988,172,408;F.Darwin[1888]1969,i,316.17.Browne1995,237–8.18.Keynes1988,139.19.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,35.20.C79;C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,62;Knoll1997,14.21.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,404–5.22.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,162.23.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,160,166,169.24.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,167–8.25.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,168–9.26.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,174,77.27.Wallace1905,509.28.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,180.29.C.Darwin[1871]1981,ii,403.30.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,170.31.DesmondandMoore1991,327,396–8,648,655.32.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,169.33.Weikart1995,610–11.34.J.R.Moore2001,12–16.35.C.Darwin1859,62.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n244dianeb.paul36.Weikart1998a.37.F.Burkhardtetal.,1985–2001,Correspondenceviii,189.38.J.R.Moore1986,62;cf.ShapinandBarnes1979;Young1985b.39.R.Hofstadter1944,6–7.40.Mitman1997.41.QuotedinStepan1987,137.42.Crook1994,7.43.Stepan1987,140–1.44.Stepan1987,138–42.45.Hawkins1997,251–7;seealsoRussett1989.46.Bellamy1888,179.47.OnGilman,seeDoskow1997.48.SeeR.J.Richards1987,243–313,325–30;alsoWallace1905,27.49.Spencer[1851]1970,379.50.Bowler1990,170–1;forasimilarview,seeKaye1997,26–35.51.Hofstadter1944;J.R.Moore1985.52.QuotedinDegler1991,12.53.LaVergata1985,960.54.Bagehot[1872]1974,22–3.55.Jones1980;Hawkins1997,especially26–35;andJ.R.Moore1986,35,65.56.Jones1980,108;Bellomy1984,118.57.Bannister1979,166.58.Foramoredetailedaccountofthesedevelopments,seePaul1995.59.Forexample,seeEhrenstrom¨1997.60.Perhapsthemostdirectevolutionaryargumentsonbehalfofimmigra-tionrestrictionwerebysocialists.SeePittinger1993.61.Onthe‘euthanasia’programme,seeBurleigh1994.62.R.J.Evans1997,55–6.63.Liebknecht1901,91–2.64.QuotedinWeikart1993,471.65.Benton1982,89–91;Weikart1993,472–3;Weindling1991,16;Wein-dling1998.66.Weikart1998b,2.67.ForadetaileddiscussionofGermanworkers’readingpreferences,seeKelly1981,128–41.68.F.Darwin[1888]1969,iii,237.69.Benton1982,92,94.70.R.J.Evans1997,64.However,DanielGasmanclaimsthattheMonistunderstandingofpacifismtendedtobeidiosyncratic,understoodasadistantgoaltobereachedafterachievingthetotalhegemonyoftheSec-ondReich.WhileoftencriticalofGasman,RichardWeikartalsonotesCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin,socialDarwinismandeugenics245thattheassumptionsunderlyingmuchGermanpacifism,includingHaeckel’s,werenotnecessarilybenign.SeeGasman1972andWeikart2003.71.Benton1982,90.72.Haeckel1879,92.73.QuotedinWeikart1998a,25.74.deRooy1990,15.75.Weiss1987,68.76.deRooy1990,14;Weiss1987,72,74.77.Kellogg1917,28–9.78.Inthe2003versionofthisessay,IwrotethatDanielGasmanwasper-hapstheonlyhistoriantoassertthattherewasastraightpathfromDarwintoHitler(viaHaeckel).Thiswasincorrect.AlthoughGasmanarguesthatHaeckel’sviewsleaddirectlytoNazism,hehasalsocon-sistentlymaintainedthatGerman‘Darwinismuswasfarfromthebi-ologicalideasorunderlyingmoralandphilosophicalviewsofDarwinhimself’(Gasman2004,xvii;seealsoGasman1998).Weikart2006alsostressesHaeckel’sinfluenceonNazism,althoughheviewstheimpactashistoricallycontingentandbelievesHaeckel’sideastohavebeenonlyoneofseveralinfluencesonNaziideology.79.deRooy1990,16.80.HerrnsteinandMurray1994.Foranuanceddiscussionoftherelationoftheirworkto‘socialDarwinism’,seeDickens2000,64–80.81.Singer1999,6.82.QuotedinBellomy1984,126.83.Burrow1966;Bannister1979.84.Crook1998,1.85.R.J.Evans1997,78.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\njonathanhodgeandgregoryradick10TheplaceofDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrunidewey’slegacyIn1909,aspartofthecelebrationscommemoratingCharlesDarwin’sbirthin1809andthepublicationofhisOriginofSpeciesin1859,theAmericanpragmatistphilosopherJohnDeweygavealectureatColumbiaUniversityon‘theinfluenceofDarwinismonphilosophy’.Asprintedthefollowingyear,histextbegins:Thatthepublicationofthe‘OriginofSpecies’markedanepochinthede-velopmentofthenaturalsciencesiswellknowntothelayman.Thatthecombinationoftheverywordsoriginandspeciesembodiedanintellectualrevoltandintroducedanewintellectualtemperisveryeasilyoverlookedbytheexpert.Theconceptionsthathadreignedinthephilosophyofnatureandknowledgefortwothousandyears,theconceptionsthathadbecomethefamiliarfurnitureofthemind,restedontheassumptionofthesuperi-orityofthefixedandfinal;theyrestedupontreatingchangeandoriginassignsofdefectandunreality.Inlayinghandsuponthesacredarkofabsolutepermanency,intreatingtheformsthathadbeenregardedastypesoffixityandperfectionasoriginatingandpassingaway,the‘OriginofSpecies’intro-ducedamodeofthinkingthatintheendwasboundtotransformthelogicofknowledge,andhencethetreatmentofmorals,politics,andreligion.1ForDewey,whatDarwiniansciencereplacedwasaGreekphi-losophyofnaturethat,ashepresentedit,haddominatedunchal-lengedfromthedaysofPlatoandAristotle,namelythedoctrinethatfixed,purposivenatures–specificforms(eide)–arewhatarefullyrealandtrulyknowable.TodayversionsofDewey’sthesisarealiveandwell,evenamongprofessionalhistoriansandphilosophersofscience.OnereasonforthisvitalityisthattheDarwiniannatu-ralistErnstMayr,unknowinglyitseems,developedafreshversion246CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun247ofthethesisinthe1950swellintimeforthe1959centennial,inin-sistingonadistinctionbetween‘typological’thinkingand‘popula-tion’thinking.AccordingtoMayr,typologicalthinkingwasthepre-Darwinian,Platonic–Aristotelianmodeofthought,takinggeneraltypesasrealwhiletreatingindividual,varyingplantsandanimalsasimperfectinstantiationsoftypes;whereasinDarwinian,popula-tionthinking,theindividualswithalltheirvariationsarewhatisreal,withgeneraltypesunderstoodasmereintellectualconstructs.2FurtherreinforcementforsuchthesesasDewey’sandMayr’shascomefromtheinfluence,fromtheearly1960s,ofThomasKuhn’sphilosophyofscience.OnKuhn’saccount,anyfieldofscienceorscientificdiscipline–chemistry,say,ornaturalhistory–isofteninanundramatic,business-as-usualstate,easilyassimilatingfreshfactstocurrenttheoreticalorthodoxy,untileventuallytoomanynewanomalousfactsfittoouneasilywiththeoreticalexpectations.Therefollowsacrisis,resolvedonlythrougharevolutionaryupheavalsud-denlyresultinginaregimeshifttoafundamentallynewcomplexoftheoreticalandpracticalauthority:anewparadigm,inKuhn’sterminology.3ThushasDarwincometobeseenastherevolution-aryoverturnerofatwo-millennia-old,Platonic–Aristotelianancienregime´.AcenturyonfromDewey,withanotherDarwinanniversaryuponus,itistimetobemorecritical,moresubtle.Whatfollowsisananalysisofthecomplicationsthatmakewhollyunacceptableanyversion,nomatterhowqualified,oftheDeweyanthesisaboutDarwin’splaceintheintellectuallongrun.Oneclusterofcompli-cationsdiscreditstheviewthattherewasasingle,hegemonicpre-DarwinianregimeofPlatonic–Aristotelianthought.AsecondclustershowsthatDarwin’sOrigincontinuedcertainintellectualtrendsofhiserafarmorethanitcontradictedthem(onesuchtrendbeingadisengagementfromthesetofproblemsinheritedfromPlatoandAristotle).Athirdrevealsthatthescientificandphilosophicalre-sponsestotheOriginhavebeensodiverseincontentandtimingthatonecannotplausiblydescribethem,asDeweydoes,asthegrad-ualworkingsoutofanineluctablelogic.Inexploringthesethreeclustersofcomplicationsinturn,thischapterdoesnot,wemustemphasise,setouttoincludeoreventoinitiatealltherethinkingrequiredforthelong-runplacingofDarwin’stheories.Butitdoesaimtoshowwhythereisaneedforfreshstarts.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n248jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickiigreektraditionsonoriginsandspeciesFromancienttimesthrougheventothe1830s,whenDarwinbeganhisnotebooktheorisingonspecies,Greekintellectuallegacieswereindeedunquestionablyliveresourcesformanyleadingbotanistsandzoologists.ButPlatonismandAristotelianismwereonlytwoofthoselegacies,andatmanyperiods–notablyinthetwocenturiesbeforeDarwin’sOrigin–theywerefarfromthedominantones.Indeed,totheextentthatDarwindidfacePlatonistorAristotelianopponents,theseopponentswerejoininginwhatwere,inmanycases,recentrevivalsofthoselegacies,revivalsthatDeweywouldinviteustomisinterpretasthetail-endofanenduringconsensusstretchingallthewaybacktoPlatoandAristotlethemselves.AmoreaccurateassessmentoftheOrigin’srelationshiptotheseGreektraditionsre-quiresamorecomplexunderstandingofthepluralityoftheGreekintellectualheritagesonoriginsandspecies,andamorediscriminat-inganalysisofhowpeoplesinceantiquityselectivelyappropriatedthosepluralheritages.4AncientGreekproseandpoetryofeveryepochandgenreaboundwithmyriadviewsaboutlife’skindsandbeginnings.Individualearlyphilosophers,suchasAnaximanderandEmpedocles,oftensub-sumedthesekindsandbeginningswithintheirdiversetheoriesabouttheultimateconstituents,processesandagenciesresponsibleforthecontentsandorderoftheworld:theorieslatercategorisedasaccountsofarchai(principlesororigins).Subsequently,amongtheschoolsofphilosophy,disagreementsaboutbeing(ontology)andtheworld’sorder(cosmology)entaileddisagreementsaboutoriginsandspecies.Atleastfourschools–atomists,Platonists,AristoteliansandStoics–foundedenduringtraditionsontheseissues.Theatomisttradition,startedbyLeucippusandDemocritusanddevelopedbyEpicurus,waseventuallygivencanonicalexpositionbytheRomanLucretius.ThePlatoniclineageincludednotonlyPlato’spupils,butalsolaterfollowerssuchasPlotinus,oftendubbedNeoplatoniststoday.Aris-totlewasPlato’spupil,butdisagreedenoughtobeseenusuallyasfoundinganewtradition.ThefirstStoicwasaZeno(butnottheparadoxer)whoseteachingstaketheirnamefromhislecturingonapaintedporch(stoa).ForunderstandingthediversityamongGreeklegacies,thedeepdisagreementsbetweentheatomistsandthePlatonists–disagree-mentsaboutarchai–offeranindispensableintroduction.TheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun249atomists’archai,theirprinciplesororigins,wereatomsandthevoid:tiny,invisible,unsplittablematerialparticlesmovingmindlesslyinemptyspace.Bythefortuitousconcatenationsoftheseparticles,thesun,moon,earthandtherestwereformed.OnLucretius’fertileearlyearth,allkindsoflife,includinghumans,arosebychance,withafewkindshappeningtohavestructuresandpowersenablingtheirsur-vivalandreproductivestabilitythroughtothepresent.Bycontrast,inlaterepitomes,Plato’sarchaiwerethree:GodortheDemiurge(theCraftsman);theForms(orIdeas);andChaos(irregularmotionsinSpace–Matter).AgoodGodlookedforhispatterntotheFormsinorderingthischaosintothecosmos.Asperfectimmaterialrecipesandstandards,theFormsareeternallychangeless,transcendentallybeyondtimeandplace,andindependentoftheCraftsman’smind.AmongtheFormsareMan,Horseandalltherest,recipesandstan-dardsforeveryspeciesoflife.Thefirstanimalsmadeweremen.Some,actinglow-mindedly,wereturnedintowomen;andsoon,allthewaydownthefullarrayofspeciestothelowestlife.Unchang-ingnessinFormscoheresherewithchangeintheirinstantiatingembodiments.ThesedeepcosmologicalcontrastsbetweentheatomistsandPlatooverteleologyorpurposivenesscorrelatewithfundamentalontolog-icaldivergences.BoththeatomistsandPlatoagreedwiththeircom-monmentorParmenidesthatonlybeingitselftrulyandknowablyis;becauseonlybeingisfreefromvarietyandchange.However,forPlato,thetruebeingsaretheimmaterialForms,whicharegeneral,generic,typical;whilefortheatomists,eachmaterialparticletokenisatruebeing.TheatomistsfoundParmenideanbeinginthemate-rialpartswithinthishorse;PlatolookedabovetotheFormHorse.TheatomsandtheFormsweredivergentontologiesfordifferentarchaiforcontrastingcosmogonies–contrastingaccounts,thatis,ofhowthecosmoswasfirstproduced,accountsfittingthesenewParmenideanconstraints.AristotlebrokewiththeatomistsandwithPlatoonoriginsandspecies.Aristotle’scosmoshasalwaysexisted;sohehasnocos-mogony.Accordingly,hisarchaiincludenoprecosmicchaosorcraftsmangod.HisGodis,rather,aneverlastingunmovedsourceofmotionandperfectunchangingobjectofemulation;andhisprin-cipalprinciples,archai,hisoriginswithnoorigins,arethisgodandformsandmatter.AllowingnoPlatonicseparationofFormsfromformedindividuals,oftranscendentalessencesfromimmanentCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n250jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickinstantiations,Aristotleinsistedthatthishorseorthismanistrulyandknowablyabeing.Itsembodied,enmatteredformdeterminesitskind,itsspecificnature,andsoitsknowable,definableessence–whatitistobehorseorman.Thismanisessentially,andsoneces-sarilyandalways,man;andlikewiseforthishorse.Foralthoughthemancanlosethinnessorpaleness,anylossofessentialproperties–rationalityandanimality–wouldentailceasingtobethebeingthatheis,manratherthanhorse.ThisnecessaryunchangingnessinessenceallowstheformofthismantomeetsomeParmenideanconstraintsonwhatis,trulyandknowably.However,thisunvariednessandunchangingnessinessencedoesnotensurethattheeverlasting(sempiternal)formsareperpetuatedfixedlyoverendlessgenerations.Suchfixityisensuredcosmologi-cally.Theformofalivingbeingisitssoul:allthestructuringsandpowersofitslivingbodythatitscorpsewilllack.Amonglowerkinds,parentless,spontaneousgenerationscangenerateanimalsfrominan-imatematter.Butamongthehigherkinds,ittakesparents.Foractualityispriortopotentialityandsoonlytheformofanac-tualmaleparentcanbetheoriginoftheformofhispotentiallyadultoffspring.Aristotle’scosmos,unlikePlato’s(onAristotle’sread-ingofPlato),hasaninfinitepastandfutureinitspresentspheri-cal,earth-centredorder.Inthedivine,perfectheavens,aplanetorastarcirclesendlessly.Inthelower,imperfectterrestrialrealm,nosubhumananimalcanliveforeverbut,asalwaysinAristo-tle’scosmos,beingisbetterthannot-being;and,byreproducing,achickenorahorsecanperpetuatethecycleoflifeforitskind,soparticipatingasfarasitcaninfull,divine,perfect,sempiternalbeing.Whereas,forPlato,anindividualchickenparticipatesineter-nalbeingbyinstantiatingtheFormChicken,forAristotleanindivid-ualchickenparticipatesinunchangingbeingbyreproducing,andsobelongingtoacyclethatemulatestheperfect,heavenlycycles.Theseparticipationalpossibilitiesarealwaysactualisedforallspecies;be-cause,thanksagaintocelestialstability,earthlyenvironmentsonlychangeinlimited,reversibleways,neverextinguishingoldspeciesorcallingfornewones.Aristotle’sessentialistalternativetoPlato’sessentialismdoesnotensurepermanentfixityforthepresentar-rayofspecies,buthissempiternalcosmosdoes,drivenefficientlyandledteleologicallyasitisfromtheoutsidein,fromheavenstoearth.NolessthanPlato’stranscendentForms,Aristotle’sspeciesasCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun251immanentformsareoriginssooriginalcosmologicallyastobewith-outorigins.Inhisintegrationofontologyandcosmology,then,AristotlewasdisagreeingwithDemocritus,forwhomspeciesarenotoriginsandsocanhaveorigins,andwithPlato,whosespeciesasFormsareori-ginswithoutorigins.Butlikethemheworkedwith,ifnotalwayswithin,Parmenides’legacyofprivilegingunchanging,unvariedbe-ing.TheStoicsdidnotworkwiththatlegacy;fortheylookedbacktoHeraclitus’cosmologyoffieryflux,acosmologywithnosuchprivileging.TheStoics’twoarchaifortheircompletelycorporealcosmosareordinarymatter,asapassiveprinciple,andaspecial,active,nolessmaterialprinciplethatisfiery,rational,providen-tial,godly,andeverywherepermeatingordinarymatterandorder-ingitinfluidseedings,calledseminalreasons.Stoicsheldthatthechangeswroughtcangoasfarasthefierydestructionoftheen-tirecosmosandthemakingofasuccessorfromitsruins.Further-more,thesuccessor,beingnolessperfect,willhavetheverysameindividuals(thesamesoldierswinningthesamebattles)andsothesamespeciesasbefore,speciesbeingknown,fortheStoics,ascon-ceptsinourmaterialmindsratherthanasgenericconstituentsofthecosmos.AnysketchofthediversityintheseGreekcosmologies,ontolo-giesandtheoriesoforiginsandspeciesoughttoendtwotemptations:totalkofasingle‘Greekworldview’or‘philosophyofnature’,or,ifadmittingmore,todividetheirauthorsinto‘evolutionistprecursorsofDarwin’and‘creationistforerunners’ofhisopponents.Anachro-nisticcategoriesforthediversityareasmisleadingasdenialsofitsexistence.iiioriginsandspeciesfromantiquitytotherenaissanceInhisinvocationsofancientGreeks,Deweymadelifeeasyforhim-self,verymisleadinglyofcourse,bytendingtolumpPlatoandAris-totletogetherandbylargelyignoringtheothers.WhenitcametotheancientJudeo-Christiantraditions,hetookaneveneasiertack,denyingthatDarwinwasrelatedtotheminanyphilosophicallyin-structiveways.Suchadenialcanneverbejustifiable,andfortwoobviousreasons:notonlydidJudeo-ChristianviewsoforiginsandCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n252jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickspecieshavefeaturesthatnoGreektraditionshad,buttheGreektra-ditionscamedowntolaterWesternthinkersonplantsandanimalsonlyaftercenturiesofinteractionandintegrationwithmonothe-isticJewish,ChristianandIslamictheologies.AbrieflooknowattheJudeo-ChristiansideoftheWesterninheritanceonoriginsandspecieswillhelpbringoutthefullrangeofintellectualoptionsthatdevelopedoverthecenturiesbetweenPlatoandDarwin.Fromantiquitydowntothemiddleages,alltheGreeklegaciesex-cepttheatomisttraditioncametobeincorporatedbyJewish,Chris-tianandIslamicthinkersintodefencesoftheirfaiths.5Eachfaithhadsomedefendersdrawing,forinstance,onlatePlatonism,inholdingthatGodhasnotworkedasamakerofinitial,successivecreativeoriginations,butratherhaseternallyemanatedthecosmosasthesunemanatesheatandlightwithoutself-diminishment.Mostmonothe-ists,however,followedPlatohimselfinarguingforacraftsmanGod,oftenjoiningthatnotionwithothersfromrivaltraditions.Philo,aJewishcontemporaryofChrist,andauthoroftheearliestsurvivingJudaicorChristiancosmogonicaltreatisetodeployGreekresources,mixedthisPlatonicprecedentwithStoicdoctrines.AndAugustine,writinginthefourthcenturyCE,didlikewise.Forprincipia(prin-ciplesororigins),AugustinehasFormsasIdeasinGod’smind,asmiddleandlatePlatonistshad;buthealsohasseminalreasonsla-tentintheearth,asStoics,andfollowingthemsomePlatonists,did.AmongChristiansofAugustine’speriod,theopeningoftheBookofGenesis,withitsaccountofcreationthroughsixdaysofdivineworkingbeforeresting(sometimescalledthe‘hexameral-sabbatical’account),wasinterpretedasacosmogonyunlikeanyGreekscheme,inthatasingleGodmakesthewholeworldwithoutassistancefromdivinehelpersorresistancefromrecalcitrantmatteroropposingagents.ThisinterpretationwassecuredbyhavingGodcreateev-erythingfromnothing,makinghimtheprincipiumofallotherprin-cipia.ForthelaterAugustine,thetransitionfromnothingtoevery-thingwaswroughtattheverybeginningoftimeitself,afewmillen-niaago.So,everyspecieshaspre-existedasanimmaterialeternalDivineIdea,andeveryindividualhaspre-existedmaterially,semi-nally,fromthestartofthefirstday;foreverymaterialcreatureevertoexistwascreatedtheninitsinvisibleseeds,itsseminalreasons.Thesixdayssaw,therefore,aseriesoffirstfullgrowthsandvisibleappearances,notinitialproductions;andeversincetherehavebeenCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun253nonewproductionsofplantsandanimals,onlyfurthersproutingsfromthosesameoriginalseminalreasons.Aquinasinthethirteenthcenturycontinuedtoupholdthedoc-trineofPlatonicDivineIdeas,butreplacedtheStoicseminalrea-sonswithanAristoteliannaturalphilosophyofformsandmatter.InAquinas’philosophy,theIdeasaresomanywayswherebyaperfectGod’sessence,whichishisexistence,canbeimitatedincreatures.Thereisahierarchyfromthelowest,leastperfectmaterialbodiestothemostperfectincorporealangels,witheachdegreeofperfec-tiondeterminingaspecificnatureandconversely.OnAquinas’view,then–andasPlatoandAristotlecouldbereadasimplying–anyplaceinthescaleofperfectioncanbefilledwithonlyonespecies,andthisspeciesholdsthisoneplaceonly.And,aswithAristotlehimself,thespecificnatureisdeterminedbytheformratherthanthemat-ter.Furthermore,withGod’scompletingoftheAristoteliancosmos,achievedbythesixthday,Hisconstitutionalworkended;forsincethatdayGod’sworkhasbeenadministrative,sustainingcreaturesinaccordwiththemanylawsoftheirmanynatures:onelawforlions,anotherfortigers,eachspecieslivingandgeneratinginaccordwithitslawfulnature.InAquinas’cosmos,orderedaccordingtotheseforms,naturesandlawsofnatures,specieshaveeternal,immaterialoriginsasIdeasandmaterialoriginsintheweekofconstitutionalwork;butnospeciescanhaveoriginatedsincethen,intheperiodofcreation’sadministration.Itwasonlywiththedevelopmentsassociatedwiththatgrandepochallabel,theRenaissance,thatplentifulcosmogonicaltheo-rieswereelaboratedwithoutappealstothelegacyofPlatonicIdeasorAristotelianforms.ThecontrastingcasesofPierreGassendiinFranceandFrancisBaconinEnglandareinstructivehere.6GassendicommittedhimselfalmostexclusivelytotheEpicurean,atomisttra-dition.However,RomanCatholicChristianthathewas,heinvokedtheGodofhiscreedfororiginationsthathadnosanctionamongancientatomists.MatterforGassendioweditsfirstexistenceandoriginalpropertiestoGod,whocreatedmatterfromnothing.Fur-thermore,inGassendi’scosmogony,theworldwasorderedbyHimandnotfromanyfortuitousconcourseofatoms.WhereLucretiushadseminalantecedentsforanimalsandplantsarisingfortuitously,GassendihassuchseedsarisingfromGod’spower,goodnessandwisdom.GassendishowshowtheatomisttraditionincosmogonyCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n254jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickcouldbetotallytransformedmonotheistically,sothatGodbecomestheultimateoriginofspeciesandindividuals,evenasatomsarehismaterialandhisinstrumentsinhiscreatingofthem.TheprotestantRobertBoyle,writingafewdecadeslaterabouttheoriginofforms,followedtheseGassendianprecedentsindefendingaChristianver-sionofatomismoverallAristotelianoptions.Inelaboratinghisownaccountofmatterandofforms,Baconfol-lowednooneGreektradition.Moreover,hisbreakswithancientprecedentsoftenconcernman’srelationtonatureratherthanGod’s.Matter,asinvokedinhiscosmogonicaltheorising,cangiveitselfallthevarietiesof‘constrained’motionsthatdistinguishtheformsofsimple‘natures’suchashotandcold;andthose,itisimplied,cangiverisetovariouscomplexnatures:goldorlion.Furthermore,onBacon’saccount,transmutationsfromonesuchnature–fromonespecies–toanotherarewithinman’spowertoproduce,asinmak-inggoldfrombasemetals,butalsointransmutingoneformoflifeintoanother,andeveninmakingnewspeciesnotprovidedbyna-ture.Sowhile,forBacon,theremaybealimitedarrayofformsthatmattercantakeon,andsoalimitedconstitutionoflawsthatmattercanconformto,thatarrayandthatconstitutionwerenotcompletelyembodiedatanyoriginalmomentorperiodofDivinecreation;in-deed,man’sartsareablenowtomaketransmutinginnovations,inplantsandanimalsasinmetals.ivoriginsandspeciesfromtherenaissancetotheenlightenmentByreflectingonGassendi,Baconandothersoftheirtimewhode-partedfromPlatonicandAristoteliandoctrinesofIdeasandforms,wecanappreciatehowmanyoldandnewcosmogonicalpreoccupa-tionswithmatterwereputinplayintheseventeenthcentury.Theyalsoshowhow,whenitcametoplantsandanimals–theirstructures,powersandactionsascreatures–ahostofquestionsaboutmatterwerecomingtothefore.Whatdotheseindividualsandtheirkindsowetopowers,structuringandactionspossessedbyallmatter,noworformerly,oratleastsomematter?Andwhatdoanddidthosefea-turesofallorsomematterowetomatteritself,andwhatdirectlyorindirectly,proximatelyorultimately,toGod?ItwasReneDescartes’´answerstothesequestionsthatprovedmostconsequentialforCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun255seventeenth-andeighteenth-centurythinkers.7DescartesrejectedanydoctrineofFormorforms,PlatonicorAristotelian.Andhere-jectedanynotion,whetherPlatonicorStoic,thatthecreateduni-versehasitsownsoulorinherentvitalityandsoalifeofitsownin-dependentlyofGod.Equally,too,however,hewantednofortuitous,Epicureanconcourseofatoms.Accordingly,hehasmatterhavingasitsessenceonlyextensioninthreedimensions,andhehasGodgivingtothismatteroriginallyandeversinceonlylawfulmotion.ThelawsofnaturearethenmerelythosefewlawsGodfollowsinhisconservingofbodilyshape(abodyisonlysomuchmatteratrestinrelationtoitself)andofspeedanddirectionofmotionwithoutcollisions,andoftotalbodilyvolumeandspeedincollisions.Frommatter,solawfullymovedbyGod,allelse–barringhumanandan-gelicsouls–canarisenaturallybecauselawfully.ForDescartes,then,theprinciples,theorigins,oforder,arenotamyriadarrayofFormsorformsbutmerelytheselaws,inthatthesearetheonlysourcesofordergivenbyGodtocreation.Noonepreviouslyhadconstructedamonotheisticcosmogonywithinsuchanontologyofmatter,bodies,motionsandlawsofmo-tion.Moreover,Descartesintegratedthisinnovationwithatotalbreakwiththefinite,Aristotelian,spherical,geocentriccosmosstillfavouredbytheRomanChurch.Forhetooktheearthtobeaplanetofasunthatisitselfoneofmanystarsinanyindefinitelyextendeduniverse.Hisaccountoftheearth’sformationandofitspopulationwithlivinginhabitantswasaccordinglyseparablefromhisaccountoftheoriginoftheuniverseasawhole.AndDescartesdidindeedhaveourplanetanditslifearise,atleastasahypotheticalpossi-bility,slowly,graduallyandnaturallyfromitsownnewwhirlingvortexofmatter;frommatter,then,thathasbeenmovinglawfullyeversincetheuniverseitselfbegan.Insodoinghesetlatergen-erationsthechallenge–takenupbytheoristsoftheearthsuchasThomasBurnet,WilliamWhistonandothers–ofidentifyingGod’ssubsequentinterventionsbyaskingwhichoriginationsweremirac-ulousandwhichnatural.TheNewtonianWhiston,forexample,in-sistedthatsomehalfadozenoriginatingproductionsmusthavebeenmiraculousbecausetheywerebeyondthepowerofordinarymatterinlawfulNewtonianmotion.Amongthosemiraculousproductionswasthemakingofeverylivingcreaturethatwastoliveonearth.TothisendWhistonadoptedtherecentlynewpreformationisttheoryofCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n256jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickenboxedpre-existentgerms:inthefirstmembersofeachspeciesweremiraculouslystructuredandencased,minutebutperfectlyformed,allthedescendantstheywouldeverhave–atheorywithacknowledgedprecedentsinAugustine’sseminalreasons.8Someopponentsoftheenboxingtheorysawthemselvesasfollow-ingintheatomisttradition,theoneancienttraditionthatinvokednoFormsorformsandnoseminalreasonseither.SuchwasBuf-fon,theFrenchnaturalhistorianandnaturalphilosopher,whoseEpoquesdelaNatureof1778invitedobviouscomparisonswithLucretius’DeRerumNatura.9UnlikehisRomanpredecessor,how-ever,BuffonembracedthecurrentNewtoniannaturalphilosophywithitsnewontologyofmatter,motion,forces,andlawsofmotionandforce.Hewasexplicitinconstructingamacrocosmogonyforthesolarsystemandtheearth,andamicrocosmogonyforanimalandplantgenerations,puttingnothingonanylistlikeWhiston’sofwhatNewtoniannaturecouldnotproduce.NordidBuffonmakeanyappealtoScriptureinestimatingchronologicalorderings,nortoPlatonic,AristotelianorStoicteleologies–theories,thatis,ofpurposes.InGreekorLatinterms,thearchai,principia,forBuffon’scos-mogoniesarematterandtheNewtonianattractiveandrepulsiveforcesofgravityandheat.Ontheearly,veryhotearth(asonotherplanetstoo),theseforcessufficedforspontaneous,parentlessgenerationsofeventhehighestspeciesofanimalsandplants.InBuffon’sview,thesehigherspeciesarethemoststableandleastmutableinchangingconditions,andsomehavesincegoneex-tinct,unabletoliveincoolertimes.Nature’spowerstodaysufficeonlyforthespontaneousgenerationsofsimpleorganisms.Threedecadeson,atthenewcentury’sopening,Buffon’sone-timeproteg´e´Jean-BaptisteLamarckpublishedanewNewtonianalternativetoBuffon’sNewtoniancosmogonies.Lamarckagreed,now,thatallan-imalsandplantsareproductionsofnature,whichistosayofmattermovedbythoseNewtonianforces.But,havingrejectedoverallcool-ingfortheearth,heinsistedthatnaturehasonlyeverbeenabletoproducedirectlythoseinthesimplestclassesasshedoestoday.Thehigherclasseshavehadthenalwaystobeproducedindirectly,successively,progressivelyovervastnumbersofyearsandgener-ations,startingfromthesimplest.Thisindirectproductionofallbutthelowestclassesrequiresunlimitedmutabilityinspecies.LikeCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun257Newtonhimself,Lamarckcalledthespecialetherealmatterofheatanactiveprinciplecontrastingwiththepassiveinertiaofordinarymatter.TherearegenuinealignmentsinLamarck’stheorising,evenifremoteandunflagged,withatomistandStoictraditions,butnonewithPlatonicandAristotelianlegacies.10Theinevitableandcorrectwaytoappreciatethediversityofviewsinmid-eighteenth-centurynaturalhistoryistoconsideraswelltheviewsofLinnaeus,theSwedishnaturalistwhoseemphasisonclas-sificationwassoun-Buffonian.11However,atemptationhastobeavoided,inthatitismisleadingtoreadLinnaeusasplayingAristo-tletoBuffon’sLucretius.Aristotle’suniversewasnotLinnaeus’,forhewascontenttosethisnaturalhistorynotinanyexplicitmacro-cosmologicalormacrocosmogoniccontext,butinanEdenicterres-trialsetting.Adamnamedthesamekinds,thesamespecies,ashe,Linnaeus,namedandassignedtoclasses,ordersandgenerainhisday.Forthiscontinuity,speciesaretakentostablyperpetuatetheirdistinctivecharacters,withanyaccidentaleffectsofsoilorclimateorwhateverbeingignorableasinducingmerevarietiestootransienttobenamedandclassifiedasspeciesare.Eventually,Linnaeusal-lowedfornewspeciestoarisepost-Edenicallyinhybridisationsofearlierones.But,heassumed,thesehybridisationsproducedspeciesnolessstable,andsonolessnameableandclassifiablethantheorigi-nalones.Thefixityofspecieswasgrounded,forLinnaeus,notinanypeculiarlyAristotelianontologyofessencesorcosmologyofceles-tialperfection,butmerelyintherequirementofcontinuitybetweentheEdenicandpost-Edenicnaturalhistoryofnaming,collectinganddividing–anddefining,asAristotlehadfirsttaught,pergenusetdifferentia,bygenus,thatis,anddifference.ThedeepchasmbetweenBuffon’scosmogonicalambitionsandLinnaeus’taxonomicprogrammeensuredthattherewasnocon-sensusaboutnaturalhistoryafterthem.Theemergenceofanewcomparativeanatomyanditsapplicationstosystematiczoologyinthelastyearsofthecenturydidnotbringconsensuseither.Moreover,prominentcomparativeanatomistsdifferedintheirre-lationswithphilosophicaltraditions.GeorgesCuvier,forexample,admiredAristotle’scomparativeinsights,buthefollowedKantonhowtobeateleologistinaNewtonianworld.EtienneGeoffroySaint-Hilaire’smaterialiststructuralism,meanwhile,wasopposedtoCuvier’santimaterialistfunctionalism.LamarckwasoftenclosertoCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n258jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickGeoffroythantoCuvier,butwasnostructuralist.AndLorenzOkeninGermanyhadneo-Platoniccommitments.Whatismore,Cuvier’sandOken’sdrawingsonAristotelianandPlatoniclegacieswerenovelintheirdayandnotdrawingonanyprecedentsinthepreviousgeneration.12FromGassendiandDescartesforward,then,therehadbeenasuccessionofnaturalphilosophieswithoutPlatonicFormsorAris-totelianforms:naturalphilosophieswithmatterandmotionsandlawsand,perhaps,forces,butnotFormsorformsasultimatecos-mologicalresourcesandontologicalcommitments.So,whateverDarwinconfrontedwhenheopenedhisnotebooksin1837,itwasnot2,000yearsofPlatonic–Aristotelianconsensus.Indeed,asweshallnowsee,Darwin’stheorising,aboutspeciesandtheiroriginsandextinctions,oftendidnotneedtoengagedirectlywiththoseon-tologicalandcosmologicalreflections–onmatteranditspowers,structuringsanddifferentiations–thatPlatonic,Aristotelian,atom-ist,Stoicandotherancientandmoderntraditionsaddressed.TheyoungDarwintheorisedprivately,andself-consciouslymaterialisti-cally,aboutrelationsbetweenlifeandmatterandmindandbrain.ButindecidingtosidewithLamarckagainstLyell,andindevelopingnewversionsofLyell’sversionofLamarck,hewasnotalwaysengag-ingtheplural,ancientlegaciesaboutoriginsandspecies.ThislackofengagementisanotherreasonforwarinessaboutDeweyantheses.vwhatdarwinmovedawayfrominhisspecies-originstheorisingInmakingsenseofthisnon-engagement,thekey,assooftenwithDarwin,isLyell.UnderstandingLyell’sscienceandDarwin’srelationtoLyell’ssciencemaynotbeasufficientconditionforunderstand-ingallofDarwin’swritings,butitsurelyisanecessaryconditionforunderstandingtheOrigin.AndthispointisespeciallypertinentwhenthegoalistounderstandhowDarwin’sscienceinthatbookre-latestoeighteenth-centurytraditionsinnaturalhistoryandnaturalphilosophy.Forconsiderjustoneissue,apreciseissuebutlargeandconsequential:thisissueofmatter.Youcanread,asDarwindid,allthroughLyell’sthree-volumePrinciplesofGeologyandlearnnoth-ingofwhatLyellthoughtaboutmatter–itsmostgeneralpropertiesandhowitismovedbyforcesinconformitywithlawsandsoon.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun259AndlikewisewithDarwin’sOrigin.Thereisatermforthislack:bothbooksincludeandinvokenonaturalphilosophy–nogeneraltheoryaboutmatterandmotionandforceandsoon.Isitpossibletoargue,then,thatLyell’snatural-philosophy-freege-ology(includinghisgeographyandecologyandsoon)isthesourcefortheOrigin’sbeinglikewise?Itisnotonlypossiblebutmandatory.ForconsiderLyell’stheoryoftheearth,hisaccountof‘Lamarck’ssystem’ashecalledit,andhisownaccountofanimalandplantspecies.Ontheearth,Lyellhasastable,providentialbalance–asJamesHuttondid–betweentheigneousandaqueousagenciesattirelessworkontheearth’ssurface.ButwhereHutton,inthe1790s,groundedthisstabilityinaNewtonian(andneo-Boerhaavian)natu-ralphilosophyofmatterandattractiveandrepulsiveforces,Lyellhasnosuchgrounding.Again,whereLamarck,in1802,deriveshisinter-pretationofmutablespeciesexplicitlyfrompriordoctrinesconcern-inglivingbodies,theirmatter,theirmotionsandtheattractiveandrepulsiveforcescausingthosemotionsinthesimplestorganisms,Lyell’srestructuredaccountofLamarck’stransmutationofspeciesleavesalmostallthatout.AsforLyell’sownviewofspecies,itistakenfromcontemporarynaturalhistoriansofman,J.C.Prichardespecially,whodrewheavilyonBlumenbach.AndLyell’sviewisconsequentlydetachedfromanynatural-philosophicaltraditionofconstruingspeciesinanAristotelianmannerasformalnatures,say,orinaLockeanmanner,say,asnominalessencesorreal(cor-puscular,material,constitutional)essences.ForLyell’sinvokesthenew,natural-historicalviewofanimalandplantspeciesassexu-allyreproductivesuccessionsdistinguishedbytheirdescentsfromdistinct,independent,originalstocks;successionskeptseparatebyreproductiveaversionsandincompetences,andkeptdistinguish-ablebythelimitationsoftheirvariationstointra-specificvarietaldivergences.Thiscontrast,betweenLockewritingaround1700(andfollow-inginGassendi’sandBoyle’sfootsteps)andPrichardandothersacenturyon,arosefromconsequentialshiftsinthinkingaboutallkindsofkinds.Plato’saccountofFormscoveredverydiversedo-mainsindeed:Horse,Fire,Gold,TriangleandJusticeandsoonareallForms.Locke’sreal–corpuscular,constitutional–essencescoverthefirstthreebutnotthegeometricalorethicalkindsofkinds.InthedecadesafterLocke,however,chemistsandmineralogistscametoCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n260jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickinsistthatthedifferencesamongelements,amongcompoundsandamongmixturesaredifferentkindsofdifferences,duetodifferentrelationsamongtheirinnermaterialconstituents.Moreovernaturalhistorians,havingnowlearned,fromLinnaeusandothers,thatallandonlyanimalsandplantsengageinsexualreproduction,insistedthatspeciesintheorganickingdomkeepdistinctanddistinguish-able,andsomustbedistinguishedinclassifications,inwaysnotmatchedintheinorganicworld.ThatwaswhyLamarck,forone,calledmineralkindssortsnotspecies.Itwasalsowhynaturalhis-torians’decisionsoverwhetherhumankind,say,isonespeciesormany,questionsaboutoriginalancestralstocksandsubsequentre-productivesuccessions,variationsandfertilityincrossingsbecomemuchmoredecisive,aswellasmoreaccessible,thanquestionsofinnermaterialconstitutions.Withchemistsandmineralogistsandnaturalistshavingdeviatedsomuchfromoneanother,andwiththeirworldnowdividednotintothreekingdoms(animal,plantandmin-eral)butintojusttwo–theinorganicandtheorganic–realms,LockecouldlookaspasseasPlato.´13GoingbacktotheOrigin,itisarguableatleastthatthemainrea-sonforitsincludingandinvokingnonaturalphilosophyofmatter–andtherest–istohand.FortheOriginacceptsLyell’sneo-Huttoniantheoryoftheearth;andthisprovidesthestageforDarwin’shis-toryoflifetobeplayedon;whileofcoursehedisagreeswithLyell’srejectionofLamarck’stransmutationismandwithLyell’scommit-menttofixed,speciallycreatedspecies.ButDarwinconductsalltheseagreementsanddisagreementswithoutgroundingtheminanyagreementsordisagreementswithanyLyellianinterpretationofmatter,formsandforcesandsoon;fortherewasnonesuchtobeengaged.Thislackofengagement,itshouldbenoted,wasnouniversal,epochalimperative.Inthe1830sFaraday,totakejustoneexample,wasactivelysidingwitheighteenth-centuryanti-CartesiannaturalphilosopherssuchasBoscovich,who,drawingonbothLeibnizandNewton,soughttogroundthetheoryofmaterialsubstances,bodies,intheirunderstandingofforcesratherthanconceptsofmotionandofextensionalone.ClosertoDarwin’sownintellectualterritoryofnat-uralhistory,furthermore,Platonismwasnewlyresurgent,thankses-peciallytotheinfluenceofGermanRomanticNaturphilosophieanditsmostphilosophicallyinfluentialexponent,FriedrichSchelling.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun261ForSchellingandhisscientificfollowersintheGerman-speakinglands,includingthecomparativeanatomistsLorenzOkenandLouisAgassiz,PlatonismwasattractiveinpartbecauseitwasseentobeolderandtruerthantheusualEnlightenmentalternatives.TheNeoplatonismofPlotinusinparticularwasprized,asitsemphasisonmicrocosm–macrocosmcorrespondencesharmonisedwellwiththenewcomparativeanatomy’sgeneralisationsastohowtheem-bryonicstagesofhigheranimals’developmentparalleledthescaleofperfectioninloweranimaladults.ItfittedtoowithGermanRomanticism’snationalism,viathemorepositivevaluationgiven,forinstance,tothealchemistmedicParacelsusasafigurefromthepre-EnlightenmentGermanpast.ForthelikesofOken,goingbe-yondBuffonandLinnaeuscouldincludegoingbehindthemtore-vivetraditionstheyhadnotperpetuated.InEngland,meanwhile,aGermanophilicfollowerofSchelling,Coleridge,wasalsocelebratingPlotinus,anauthorverylittlereadtheresincethedaysofCudworthandMoreatpre-NewtonianCambridge.14Unsurprisingly,whenreaderssuchasWhewell,sympathetictosuchColeridgeanenthusiasms,encounteredDarwin’sOrigin,theyassociateditwiththeGreektraditionsmostcontrastingwiththePlatoniclegacies.WhewelllumpedtheOriginwiththeDemocriteanfortuitousconcourseofatoms.Thatlumpingcanilluminatehistor-ically,butitcanobscuretoo.Consider,forinstance,howDarwin’sanalogybetweennaturalandartificialselectionhasnatureandartimitatingoneanotherinwhatseems,superficiallyatleast,averyun-Democriteanmanner.AndwasnotthatanalogyfirstthoughtofbyayoungtheisticDarwin,whocouldapprovinglyquoteanoldaphorismaboutnaturebeingtheartofGod?ButWhewellsurelyhadasoundinsight:naturalselection,inDarwin’saccount,isnotacauseplausi-blyinterpretableasworkingreliablyandprovidentiallytosecuretheembodiment,alaPlato,ofaplan,adesign,aneternalcosmicconsti-`tutionconsistingofanarrayofimmateriallypre-existingrecipesandstandardsforallthepossibleformsoflife.ThatPlatonicconjunc-tionoftranscendentalteleologyinthecosmogonyofspecieswithtranscendentalessentialismintheontologyofspeciescanhardlybethoughttohavebeenreinforcedbyDarwin’sbook.15ItisarguablethatDarwinianaffinitiesaremanifestlymorewiththeDemocriteanratherthanthePlatoniclegacies.ButitisafarcryfromthisreflectiontoanynotionthatahegemonicconsensualCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n262jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickpre-DarwinianPlatonic–Aristotelianancienregime´wasreplacedinaDarwinianrevolution.Notonlywastherenosuchregimetobereplaced,butDarwinwasnotalwaysengagedwithissuesthatrequireddecidingbetweenPlatonicorAristotelianlegaciesandtheiralternatives.WhendisagreeingwithOken’sorCuvier’scom-parativeanatomy,hewas;butnotwhenagreeinganddisagreeingwithLyell’sspecial-creationist,providentialistbiogeography.NorisDarwin’stheorisingalwayswellcharacterisedas‘revolutionary’,ifwhatonemeansbythatwordisatotalbreakwithwhatprecededhim.TherewasmuchthatwasoriginalinDarwin’sthinking;buttheoriginalityemergedonanintellectualstagebuiltfrompre-existingtheory.Again,therelationshipwithLyell’stheorisingcanprovideaproductivefocus.viwhatdarwinconservedinhisspecies-originstheorisingOfanybookthatisoftendescribed,hyperbolically,asusheringinanewviewoftheworld,itiswellworthaskingnotmerelywhatwasnewinitbutalsowhatwasnot;what,thatis,wasacceptedbytheauthorasrequiringnochallenge,nochanging.InthecaseofDarwin’sOrigin,thetreeoflife–morepreciselythebranching-treespeciespropagations–andnaturalselectionwerethetwoleadingproposalsandbothwerenew,indeedradicallyso.ButDarwinwasofferingthemasalternativesespeciallytoLyell’snewandcontrover-sialspecialcreationism:controversialbecausehehasspeciesorigi-natingthroughoutthepastandonintothepresentandfuture.AndinrejectingandreplacingLyell’sviewoftheorganicworld,heexplic-itlyupheldLyell’sview–alsostillcontroversialamonggeologistsasitwas–ofthephysicalworld.ThatviewofthephysicalworldincludednotmerelyLyell’sneo-Huttonianbalanced,stablesystemofigneousandaqueouscausationfortheearth’ssurface,butLyell’suncontroversialacceptanceoftheold(eighteenth-century)LaplaceandLagrangestabilitythesisfortheplanets’orbitsaroundthesun,andhiscontroversialrejection,sanctionedbyJohnHerschel,ofanynebularhypothesesabouttheoriginofthisstablesolarsystem.Aswiththesolarsystemandtheearth,so,forDarwin,withlifeanditsorigin:hetookitasgiven;evenimplying,attheendofthebook(inlanguagehelaterregretted),thatitwasGod’sworknotnature’s.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun263Forthetreeoflifeandnaturalselectionweregeneralisationsabouthow–giventhesolarsystemandtheearthandthefirstlife–livingnature,andmorepreciselyitsspecies,havegoneonfromthereinthereplacingofoldspeciesbynew,replacementsthatarealwaysadaptiveandso,almostalways,progressive.Onspeciesthemselves,onwhatspeciesare–ascontrastedwithvarietiesontheonehandandgeneraontheother–Darwinwas,intheOrigin,offeringnosustained,explicitthesis.16OnereasonforthislackisthatDarwinknewthattherewasnoconsensusamonghisreadersabouthow–bytheuseofwhatcriteria–todemarcatespeciesfromvarieties;someexperts,forexample,madeacharactergapthedecisivecriterionforbeingaspeciesasopposedtoavariety,whereasothersmadeabreedinggapdecisive;andwhatDarwinsawhimselfashavingtoarguewasthatnaturalselectioncouldproducespeciesthatweregoodspecies,clearcasesofspecies,accordingtoanyofthesecurrentcriteria.Obviously,asnaturalselectionworkedgradually,speciesthatwerenotyetsuchgoodcaseswouldalwaysbepresenttoo;anddistinguishingthesefrommerevarietieswouldsometimesrequirearbitrarydecisions:hence,then,Darwin’ssuggestionsthathistheoryofspeciesoriginsentailedthatspecieswerenotreal,distinctentitiesdistinguishedbynature,butgroupingsdesignatedmoreorlessarbitrarilyasspeciesbynaturalists.ThesemomentsintheOriginarefairlydescribedasnominalisticaboutspecies;butclearlytheyaretherebecause,andnotinspiteof,Darwin’srealismaboutthecausesandeffectsofbranching-treedescentandofnaturalselection.Darwinneversawhimselfashavingtoargueagainstanyviewthatmadespeciesimmutablyfixedasaquestionofcriteriallybased–andsoconceptual–principle.Andtherewereplentyofprecedentsforhisstancehere.Mostofthose,likeLyell,whohadearlierweighedtheprosandconsofgradualtransmutation,had,aswehaveseen,consistentlytreatedtheissueasafactualone,neverattemptingtosettleitbyappealingtoconceptualprinciples.IntheologytherewerecenturiesofconsensusthatGod,beingconceivedastheonlyfullyperfectbeing,couldnotpossiblychangebecauseallchangeswouldentailgainsorlossesinperfection.Butthenaturalistsaddressingthemutability-of-speciesissueinthedecadesbefore1859hadneveradoptedthatkindofresolutionofthisissue,aresolutionbasedoncriterial,conceptualprinciplesalone.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n264jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickButwasDarwinnotaradicalinnovatornonethelessinwhathemeantbytheterm‘species’andthereforeinhisreferentialuseofit?Itisexciting,eveninanideologicalsenseromantic,tothinkofascientificinnovator,suchasDarwin,beingsonovelinhislanguagethathisreaderscouldnottellevenwhathemeantandwhathewastalkingabout,letalonewhetheritwastrueorfalse.InDarwin’scase,however,thereisnosignthathesawhimselfasthatkindofinnovatorregardingtalkofspecies;nordoanyofhiscriticsrespondastheyshouldifthisviewofhisspeciestalkiscorrect.Onceagain,threedecadesofauthoritativediscussionsofspeciesmutabilityhadestablishedthatupholdinggradualtransmutationdidnotmakeone’sspeciestalkunintelligibletoopponentsoftransmutation;itonlyputoneindeep,consequentialdisagreementwiththemonamomen-tous,fundamentalbutultimatelyfactualissue.Darwin’sradicallynewtreatmentofthisfundamentalissuecouldshowitswidestimplicationsintwoways,bothofthemverymuchconservingoftheintellectualresourcesoftheday.Onewasbybe-ingappliedtothecaseofman.Onman,Darwinhadhissayin1871intheDescentofMan.Onceagain,andasDianePaulandRobertRichardswellbringoutintheirchaptersinthisvolume,themix-tureoftheinnovativeandtheconservativeisstriking.Darwin’sac-count,forexample,ofhowthehumanmoralsensecouldarisebymodificationsofancestralanimalsocialinstinctswasthoroughlynovel;butonawholeraftofanthropological,politicalandsocio-logicalsubjects,suchasgender,race,class,property,‘civilised’and‘savage’peoples,heusuallyassociatedhimselfwiththeconventionalbeliefsandattitudesoftheliberal,gentlemanlyliteraryandscien-tificcircleshemovedin.Theotherwaywasbybeingintegratedwithsomecomprehensivecosmologicalprogramme.TheassimilationofDarwin’sproposalsconcerninglifeonearthintoa‘syntheticphilos-ophy’ofeverythingfromstarsandplanetsintheheavenstoethics,musicandlanguagewasundertakenmostprominentlyinthe1860sbyHerbertSpencer.LikeBuffonnearlyacenturyearlier,Spencerwasofferinganintegrationofheavenlymacrocosmogonywithorganis-micmicrocosmogony,andofnaturalhistoryandnaturalphilosophy.Spencer’ssynthesiscombinedWilliamHerschel(John’sfather)onsiderealastronomy,Lyell’sversionofLamarck’sbiology,VonBaer’sgeneralisationsaboutembryonicmaturations(from‘homogeneity’,byprogressivedifferentiation,to‘heterogeneity’),AdamSmithonCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun265theadvantagesofthedivisionoflabour,andGrove,Jouleandotherphysicistsonthepersistenceofforceandconservationofenergy.Allcauseshavemultipleeffects,sothat,Spencertaught,inallsuchdomainsalltendenciestochangeconformtothe‘lawofevolution’wherebyhomogeneityprogressestoheterogeneity:whetherincon-densingstellarnebulae,diversifyingdescendentspecies,developingindividualsoradvancingsocieties.ThisSpencerianassimilationofDarwinianviewsinvolvednotonlyharmonisingthemwithLamarck’s,butdetachingthemfromDarwin’stacitalignmentwithLyell’sandJohnHerschel’sscepticismabouttheastronomyofnebularhypothesesandaboutthephysicsofenergyconservationprinciples.Spencerhad,moreover,expoundedthissyntheticphilosophyinessaysinthe1850sbeforetheOriginappeared.17So,onceagain,insofarasanyDarwinianviewofthewholeworldwaspromotedorprovokedbytheOrigin,itwasnotachievedbyanymereextrapolationorinflationofthatbook’steach-ings,butwasachievedbyincorporatingthoseteachingsintoavastersynopsisalreadyconstructedfromresourcesthat,inmanyinstances,Darwinhaddeclined,ignoredornotengagedatall.viiavoidingoverlysimplegeneralisationsaboutthesciencesaftertheoriginThiscontrast–betweenwhathappenstotheOrigin’steachinginDarwin’sownhandsintheDescentandinSpencer’shandsinthe‘SyntheticPhilosophy’–canbecomplementedbymanymorecon-trasts,especiallycontrastsinthewaystheOriginbroughtchangesinthinkinginamyriadofotherfields,disciplines,sub-disciplines,subjects,branchesofknowledgeandsoon,withinandbeyondthenaturalsciences.For,onceagain,nopicturecanpossiblybemadecrediblethatseesDarwin’sinfluenceleadingtoasingleregimeshiftinanyunitarydomaindelimitedbyitsoriginalapplication.18Atoneextreme,thereistheswiftshifttoDarwiniandominanceinbiogeographywhereHooker,GrayandWallacepersuadedamajor-itythattheintegrationofbiogeographyandgeologybegunbyLyellwasbestcorrectedandcompletedbyDarwin,justastheOrigin’stwochaptersonbiogeographyhadargued.Likewiseamongpalaeon-tologistsDarwinquicklymademanyconvertstothetreeoflife,ifnottonaturalselection.Moregenerally,byhisowndeathin1882,CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n266jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickallthebranchesofsciencehehadhimselfwrittenonintheOrigin,fromcomparativeanatomyandembryologytoanimalandhumanpsychology,includedrespectedandprominentsupportersofhisteachingseveniftherewasfarfromaconsensusinhisfavour,espe-ciallywhennaturalselectionasdistinctfromthetreeoflifewastheissue.Bycontrastwiththesesuccessiveconversions,oneisstruckwiththereluctanceofthosetwoprominentFrenchmen,ClaudeBernard,thephysiologist,andLouisPasteur,thechemistturnedmicrobiolo-gist,eventorespondtowhattheOriginhadtooffer.Somesourcesofthisreluctanceareeasilydiscerned.Therewasnounitaryscienceofbiologyatthetime,fortherewasahugeintellectualandinsti-tutionalgapbetweenthevariousbranchesofnaturalhistory–withtheirpreoccupationswithspecies,extantandextinct,withcollec-tions,withclassifying,withmuseums,voyagesandwithvastspansoftimeandspace–andthemedicalsciences,mostobviouslyphys-iology,withtheirpreoccupationswithexperiments,individualsinhealthanddisease,andhospitalsandlaboratories.Darwinhimselfhaddebtstotheconceptsandtechniquesonbothsidesofthisgap;buttheOriginitselfobviouslybelongedonthenaturalhistoryside,especiallyasthebookwasreadbyphysiologists.Byscrollingforwardintothesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury,onecanquicklyappreciatethefullextentofthiscontrastbetweenDarwin’srelationswithbiogeographersandthelackofanyinfluen-tialinteractionswithmostofthesciencesassociatedwithmedicine.Onlyinthe1960swereDarwiniancommitmentsembracedenthu-siasticallyattheInstituteinParisbearingPasteur’sname.ForitwasthenthatFranc¸oisJacob,JacquesMonodandothermoleculargeneticistsworkingwithbacteriainthatveryinstitutionstoodupforDarwinratherthanLamarck.Again,aplantphysiologistinthe1950s,workingsayonthebiochemistryofphotosynthesis,wouldhardlyrecogniseevolutionarybiologistsasfellowworkersengagedinacommontask;but,inthenextdecades,thischangedwhenchloro-plastswereshowntohavetheirownDNAandso,itseemedlikely,tohaveoncelivedautonomouslyontheearlyearthbeforesymbioticincorporationasorganelleswithinthecellsofotherorganisms.Asforimmunology,ElieMetchnikoffhadarguedaround1900foraninnerDarwinismofinvasionandcompetitionamonghostandpathogeniccells.Butinthenexthalf-centurythechemistryofproteinsCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun267dominatedinterpretationsofthespecificityofimmuneresponses,untiltwoself-consciousinvokersofDarwin’sheritageinecologyandinpopulationgenetics–NielsJerneandMacFarlaneBurnet–persuadedmostimmunologists,withinameredecadestartinginthelate1950s,togoovertotheir‘clonalselectiontheory’ofantibodypro-duction.EvenmorerecentlyaquitegeneralcampaignforDarwinianmedicinehasbeenlaunched,aimed,amongotherobjectives,atget-tingmedicstocontrastadaptiveandmaladaptiveresponsesinorgan-isms,aswellascontrastingnormalandpathologicalconditions.19Contemplatingthisdiscrepancybetweenthesetwoextremes–biogeographyandpalaeontologyandtheirlikeversusmedicalsci-ence–canalertustoanobviousdiversity.WhathadtobedisplacedforDarwin’sinfluencetobeeffectivedifferswidelyfromonearenatoanother.Nineteenth-centuryidealisticmorphology,withitsac-knowledgeddebtstoPlato,mayindeedhavebeenwhatDarwin’schampionshadtoovercomeinthefieldofcomparativeanatomy.Butinimmunologytheproteinchemistsopposedbytheclonalse-lectiontheoristscanhardlybeseenasdescendingfromanyPlatonicancestries,unlessonedeemsall‘instructionist’–asopposedto‘se-lectionist’–theoriesinscienceasPlatoniclegacies;whichissurelyadeemingtoofar,giventhatLamarckiantransmutationsbythein-heritanceofacquiredcharactershavetheenvironmentefficaciousincausingadaptivechangebyinstructingnotselecting,andgiventhatthistheoryisusuallycitedasaprimeexampleofinstructionistratherthanselectionistthinking.Insum,then,whatissuggestedbytheseexamplesofDarwin’sin-fluenceindiversearenasoveracenturyiswhatwouldbeconfirmedbyamorecompletesurvey,anditisthis:theonegeneralisationonecanmakeisthatgeneralisationsarehardtocomebyandthat,whenonedoesassemblethem,theydiscredit,ratherthanexemplifyandconfirm,anysingle,revolutionaryregimeshiftnarrative.Darwin’sinfluenceshavebeentoomany,toodeep,tooprolongedandtoovar-ioustofitanysuchscheme.Farfrombeinglessthanrevolutionary,theyhavebeen,intheirentirety,morethanrevolutionary;andifthatsoundsparadoxicalorhyperbolicitisonlybecausethedesignation‘revolutionary’hasbeenusedtoooftenforhollowemphasisandex-aggeration.No,tosaythatDarwin’sinfluencehasbeenmorethanrevolutionaryisnottoechotheoldone-lineraboutfootballnotbe-ingamatteroflifeanddeathbutsomethingfarmoreimportantthanCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n268jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickthat;itisjusttosaythatthereisnoonetransitionthatcanbeiden-tifiedastheshiftthatreplacedapre-DarwinianwithaDarwinianregimeinWesternthought.viiiavoidingoverlysimplegeneralisationsaboutphilosophyaftertheoriginThispoint–anditsassociatedthemesofpluralityanddiversityinDarwinianinfluencesandtransitions–isillustratednolessvividlywhenoneturnstothatmostobviouslyanomalousandproteanin-tellectualactivityofall:philosophy.20ItisverydifficulttoreachtidygeneralisationsabouttherelationsbetweenDarwinianscienceandWesternphilosophyoverthelastcenturyandahalf.Thereareatleastfourreasonsforthisdifficulty.First,thosephilosopherswhohaverespondedpositivelytoDarwiniantheorieshavelittleelseincommon.Somehavebeentoughminded,sometender,touseJames’distinction;somethis-worldly,someother-worldly;someidealistic,somematerialisticandothersphenomenalist.Second,thepositiveresponseshavebeenrespondingtodifferentelementsinDarwiniantheory.Forsomeithasbeenacommongenealogyforalllifethathasbeendecisive,forsomeithasbeennaturalselectionasacomprehen-siveexplanatoryresource,whileforothersithasbeenthegenealogyofmanortheroleofnaturalselectioninhumanoriginsandhumanhistorythathasbeenthecrucialresource.Thirdly,philosophyitselfhasneverbeenaconsensualinquiry:therehasneverbeenagree-mentaboutwhatphilosophersdo,aboutwhatphilosophyis,andsonoagreementaboutitsrelationswithotheractivitiesandinquiries:thesciences,religionandthearts.Fourthly,philosophyhaslivedandstilllivesadoublelife:professionalandamateur.Andevolutionarybiologists,fromHuxleytoHaldaneandontoMonodandCrick,havebeenconspicuousamateurs.Howdothesecomplicationsbearonindividualcasesofinfluen-tialphilosophicaldoctrinesandauthors?Considerforastartwhatphilosophershavedonewiththecommongenealogyforalllife.Somehavereasonedthatthisgenealogyvindicatesmaterialismbecauseasonetraceslife’sascent,fromthehumblestprebioticsystemsthroughlowerandhigheranimalstoman,therecanhavebeennomomentwhenanentirelynewimmaterial,spiritualsubstancesuddenlyen-tered.But,conversely,ofcourse,otherphilosophershavearguedthatCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun269asonedescendssmoothlyfromhumantolowerformsoflife,mindorspiritmaybeprojectedbackdowntheancestralsequence,albeitinever-diminishingdegrees,soastovindicatepanvitalistandpanpsy-chistconclusions.Predictablyenoughthematerialistargumentsas-sociatesuchphilosophers,atleastintheeyesoftheiropponents,withmechanistic,reductioniststancesallegedlyassociatedwithEpicurean,CartesianorLaplaceanheritages;whiletheconverseanti-reductionistline,astakenbyA.N.WhiteheadorSamuelAlexanderorHenriBergsonforexample,linksitsproponentswithpantheis-tic,Spinozistictraditionsintheologyandemergentistemphasesonhigher-levelpropertiesofhigherorganismsbeingirreduciblyemer-gentratherthanreduciblyconsequentuponlower-levelproperties.And,obviously,ithasnotonlybeenphilosopherswhohavejoinedinsuchdialogues.R.A.FisherandSewallWrightsharedasympathywithBergson’sviews,whileJacquesMonodinvokedEpicurus.Thereis,however,onephilosophicaltradition,pragmatism,thathasbeenexceptionalintheextentandnatureofitspositiverela-tionshipwithDarwinianscience.21VariouslegendsaboundaboutaclubinCambridge,MassachusettsinthedaysofPeirceandJamesandothers,andsomeoftheselegendsaretrueandinstructivelyso.Whatisdecisivehereisthatthenoveldoctrinesself-consciouslyde-velopedasdefinitiveofpragmatismwereexplicitlyseenbytheprag-matiststhemselves,Peirce,JamesandDewey,asderived,inpartatleast,fromgeneralisedreflectionsonnaturalselection.InDewey’sversionofthederivation,itwastheconsequentialismthatcounted.Innaturalselectionwhatthespeciesofferstotheenvironmenthasitsfatedeterminednotbyitssourcesbutbyitsconsequences.Theenvironmentandthelifeledbywolvesdeterminesthathavinglong,stronglegsratherthanshort,feebleonesbetterenablessurvivalandflourishing.Likewise,then,foranyhumanbeliefsandactions:lettruthandfalsitybeunderstoodasfatesforbeliefsaccordingtotheirconsequencesforsuccessorfailureincopingwithourenvironment.AsSimonBlackburnexplainsinhischapterhere,withthisconse-quentialisttakeontruth,allversionsofrepresentationalistviewswereoftensetaside.Toacquiretruebeliefsisnottoacquirein-nermentalrepresentationsthatmatchorcopyanyouterrealities;no,itistoacquirehabitsofactionthatenablenegotiating,navi-gatinganddealingwithwhattheworldpresents:itistobecomeadapted.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n270jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickTherewas,tobesure,moretopragmatism’soriginsasaphilo-sophicaltraditionthanitsdoctrinaldebtstonineteenth-centuryDarwinianscience.Equally,therobustnessofthattraditioninourowndayhastobeunderstoodinthelightofitsinteractionswithtwodistinctivelyphilosophicaldevelopmentsofthetwentiethcen-tury:logicalpositivismandphilosophicalnaturalism.Inheritorsofnineteenth-centurypositivism’sprivilegingofscience,especiallyin-sofarasitdisplacesmetaphysicsandreligion,thelogicalpositivistsadmiredDarwiniannaturalsciencewithout,however,viewingitasaphilosophicalresourceperse,since,intheirview,theconcernofphilosophywasprincipallywiththelogicalanalysisofconcepts,statementsandarguments.Aswithotheranalyticphilosophers,thelogicalpositivists’viewofphilosophy’sproperbusinessdistancedthemdecisivelyfromanythinglikeSpencer’sphilosophyasasyn-thesisofnaturalandsocialsciences.Whenemigr´eEuropeanlogical´positivistsarrivedintheUSAinthe1930s,theyfeltespeciallycon-gruentintheirgeneralsympathieswithself-styled‘naturalists’,suchasErnestNagelatColumbiaUniversity,whocelebratedscienceastherightwaytothinkabouteverything,includingmanandsociety.However,thenaturaliststookphilosophyitselftobeinthebusinessofshowingthattherewasnosuchthingasthesupernatural,andthatnature,ascomprehendedbythenaturalsciences,wasalltherewas,sothatphysics,biologyandpsychology,asnaturalsciences,werealltheresourcesphilosophersneededinunderstandingourselvesaswellastheworld;thelogicalpositivists,inconsciouscontrast,tookaveryunnaturalscience–thescienceoflogic,groundedformanylogicalpositivistsintheconventionsoflanguage–tobetheunique,properandindispensablephilosophicalresource.Arguably,theinfluenceofNagelandthenaturalistscombinedwiththeinfluenceofWillardvanOrmanQuineinthe1950stoswingtheoutcomeinfavourofnaturalism.For,intheeyesofmanyobservers,Quinediscreditedthedividebetweenanalyticandsyn-theticstatementsandwithitanycontrastbetweenanalyticphi-losophyandsyntheticnaturalscience,arguingeventuallyindeedfora‘naturalisedepistemology’andsoforanepistemologynotofconceptualanalysisbutofcognitivepsychology.22ThisswinghasgreatlyfavouredDarwiniantheoryasaphilosophicalresourceasthepragmatistshadfirstwelcomedit.Indeed,Quinewaslabelledalogicalpragmatist;andhispsychologywasoftenthatofhisfriendCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun271B.F.Skinner,amanenthusiastic,asOwenFlanaganrecallsinhischapterinthisvolume,about‘selectionbyconsequences’asabondbetweenDarwiniannaturalselectionandoperantconditioningasatheoryofcognitioncomprehensiveenoughtoremovetheneedforanyother–antibehaviourist,cognitivist–psychology.Bythe1960s,thisconfluenceofAmericanpragmatistandAmer-icannaturalisttraditionswaspowerfulenoughtobespreadingelse-where,andtobemakingitselffeltinquartersonemightthinkunlikely.Tobesure,FrenchphilosophywasthendominatedbywritersmovingawayfromMarx,HusserlandSartrebydrawingonNietzsche,Saussureandothernineteenth-andearly-twentieth-centurysourcesalmosttotallyuntouchedbyDarwinianinfluences.InGermany,however,JurgenHabermaswascontinuingtheFrank-¨furtSchoolagendaofreconcilingandintegratinglegaciesfromMarxandFreud,andwasenlistingAmericanpragmatism’shelpindoingso,infullawarenessofitsDarwinianancestry.ixconclusionWebeganthischapterbyquotingthebeginningofDewey’s1909lecture.Weconcludebyquotingtheend:Oldideasgivewayslowly;fortheyaremorethanabstractlogicalformsandcategories.Theyarehabits,predispositions,deeplyengrainedattitudesofaversionandpreference.Moreover,theconvictionpersists–thoughhistoryshowsittobeahallucination–thatallthequestionsthatthehumanmindhasaskedcanbeansweredintermsofthealternativesthatthequestionsthemselvespresent.Butinfactintellectualprogressusuallyoccursthroughsheerabandonmentofquestionstogetherwithbothofthealternativestheyassume–anabandonmentthatresultsfromdecreasingvitalityandachangeofurgentinterest.Wedonotsolvethem;wegetoverthem.Oldquestionsaresolvedbydisappearing,evaporating,whilenewquestionscorrespondingtothechangedattitudeofendeavorandpreferencetaketheirplace.Doubt-lessthegreatestdissolventincontemporarythoughtofoldquestions,thegreatestprecipitantofnewmethods,newintentions,newproblems,istheoneeffectedbythescientificrevolutionthatfounditsclimaxinthe‘OriginofSpecies’.23Deweywasnot,itshouldnowbeclear,offeringacritical,schol-arlyhistoryofDarwin’splaceinthelongrunofWesternthought.ThenotionthatDarwinintheOriginputpaidto2,000yearsofCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n272jonathanhodgeandgregoryradickPlatonic–Aristoteliandoctrine,andinsodoingfreedhumankindatlastfromthetyrannyofabsolutes(theonetruepictureoftheworld,theonetruemorality,theultimatenatureofthings),wasaninter-pretationofhistorydesignedbyDewey–aphilosopherwithdebtstoHegelaswellasDarwin–tomakehispragmatismlookirresistible,tomakeitstandoutasthephilosophicalfulfillmentofwhatDarwinhadbegun.ThischapterhasaimedtocorrectthisDeweyaninterpre-tationoutofexistence,byshowingthatthepluralGreekheritagesofthinkingonoriginsandspeciesfurnisheddecisiveresourcesforcounteringthePlatonicandAristoteliantraditions,thatDarwinwasinanycasenotexclusivelyengagedwiththosetraditions(andwashimselfaconservativethinkerinmanyrespectsaswell),andthatattemptstoworkouttheimplicationsoftheDarwiniantheories,forphilosophynolessthanscience,haveledinmultipledirections.Nevertheless,ifwe,acenturyonfromDewey,arenowtodobetter,weneedtotakehisadvice.Forweneedtoseeknotbetteranswerstotheoldcentennialquestions,butnewagendasoffreshhistoricalandphilosophicalquestionsabouttheplaceofDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun.24notes1.Dewey1910,1–2.2.ForMayrontypologyandpopulationthinking,seeMayr1976and1982.Sober1994bisaphilosopher’sappreciativebutnotuncriticalresponse.MayrlaterusedKarlPopper’sterm‘essentialism’tolabelPlatonictypol-ogy.RecentcriticismofMayr’shistoriographycanbefoundinAmund-son2005,Winsor2006andMuller-Wille¨2007.3.Kuhn1962.4.IndispensablestudiesofGreekviewsonoriginsandspeciesincludeSedley2007;Lloyd2006;Campbell2000,2003and2006;Hankinson1998;Gerson1990;andEhrhardt1968.WethankGordonCampbellandDavidSedleyforveryhelpfulcorrespondenceandRogerWhiteforrewardingdiscussion.OnParmenideanconstraints,seeCurd1998andGraham2006.5.RecentstudiesincludeKretzmann1999.Gilson’smonographsremainuseful:Gilson1961and1957.SeealsoSteneck1976.6.OnGassendi,seeHirai2005.OnBacon,seeWeeks2007.WearemostgratefultoMargaretOslerandSophieWeeksforinvaluablediscussion.Emerton1984isofverygeneralrelevance.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwin’stheoriesintheintellectuallongrun2737.OnDescartes,seeGaukroger2002.FortheperiodfromDescartestoBuffon,theindispensableguideisRoger1997a.8.OnBurnetandWhiston,seeHodge1991b.Onpreformationisttheoris-ingintheearlymodernperiod,seeJ.E.H.Smith2006.9.OnBuffon,seeRoger1997b.10.ThisviewofBuffonandLamarckisdevelopedinHodge2008a.11.OnLinnaeus,seeMuller-Wille¨2007,Stamos2003andLarson1971.12.ForCuvier’sviews,seeColeman1964.OnCuvierandGeoffroy,seeAppel1987.OnOken,seeR.J.Richards1992,39–42.13.Onthegeneraltransformationsofnaturalphilosophyinthisperiod,seeSchaffer1986.14.OntherevivalofPlatonism,seeManasse1973.15.OnWhewellandDarwin,seeHodge2008aandb;seealsoHull,thisvolume.16.OnDarwinonspecies,seeStamos2007and2003.17.RecentstudiesofSpencerandhisinfluenceincludeFrancis2007andPeelandJones2005.18.UsefulsurveysofDarwin’simpactonthesciencesincludeOldroyd1980;Bowler1996and2003;andGlick1988.19.OnDarwinismandimmunology,seeCziko1995.20.ForhistoricalstudiesofDarwinismandphilosophy,seeCunningham1996,Randall1977andPassmore1959.Formorerecentreflections,seeLewens2007andHosleandIllies¨2005.21.OnDarwinismandpragmatisminparticular,seeWiener1949(whichincludesaforewordbyDewey).22.Forahelpfulsurveyofanalyticphilosophy,especiallyphilosophyofscience,afterQuine,seeZammito2004.23.Dewey1910,19.24.Forcomplementarysearchesfornewagendas,seeHodge1990,1991band2005.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\njeangayon11FromDarwintotodayinevolutionarybiologyithepersistenceofdarwinismFornearlyone-and-a-halfcenturies,biologistsinterestedinevolutionhavebeenhauntedbythequestionofwhethertheirconceptionsareorarenot‘Darwinian’.Whileitmaynotbeunique,thispersistentpositioningofnewdevelopmentsinrelationtoasingle,pioneeringfigureisquiteexceptionalinthehistoryofmodernnaturalscience.Physicistscurrentlyworkinginthedomainsofrelativityorquan-tumtheorymayrefersometimestoEinsteinorBohr;buttheirde-batesarenotmassivelystructuredbythisreferenceasevolutionarytheoryhasbeenandremainsstructuredbyreferencetoDarwin.AproximatecauseofDarwin’senduringpresenceisthatevolutionarybiologistshaveneverstoppedreadinghim.Theremarkablynumer-ouseditionsandtranslationsofDarwin’sbookshaveinthemselveshelpedtomakethispossible.ButtheavailabilityofkeytextsonlytakesussofarinunderstandingwhyevolutionarybiologistsgoonreadingDarwin,referringtohim,feelingthenecessityoflabellingtheirtheoriesas‘Darwinian’or‘non-Darwinian’or‘anti-Darwinian’.Indeed,onthefaceofit,therearecompellingreasonsformod-ernbiologiststoavoidaffiliatingtheirworkwithDarwin’s.Darwin-ismdoesnotbelongonlytothehistoryofscience;italsobelongstoculturalandpoliticalhistory.1Amongotherthings,neo-liberaleconomics,socialDarwinism,racialanthropology,NaziideologyandthematerialisticmonismofDarwin’sGermansupporterErnstHaeckelhadstronginteractionswithDarwinisminthefirstcen-turyofitshistory.Likewise,inmorerecenttimes,sociobiology(initsmoreideologicalforms),AmericanliberalismandtheEuropeanright-winghavebeenmorethoroughlycommittedtoDarwinism277CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n278jeangayonthantheiropponents.2AlltheseaspectsofculturalandpoliticalmodernhistorycouldhavemadeovertreferencetoDarwinandDarwinismunattractive.Indeed,asevolutionarybiologyemergedasaprofessionalscientificdiscipline,itbecameroutinetodistancethesubjectfromsuspectelementsinitspast.AsMichaelRusehasshown,professionalisationaftertheSecondWorldWarhadtheef-fectofexcluding‘amateurish’topicsfromthefield–notably,Ruseargues,inconnectionwithevolutionaryprogress,atraditionaltopicintheevolutionaryliterature,butlittlementionedintheprofes-sionalperiodicalsandbooksafter1945.3Nevertheless,fromTheodosiusDobzhanskyandErnstMayrtoRichardLewontin,MotooKimura,StephenJayGouldandStuartKauffman,thequestionofwhetherevolutionarybiologyshouldorshouldnotbeDarwinianhasbeenexplicit.Moregenerally,thecon-stantandoverwhelminginterestofworkingevolutionarybiologistsinDarwinsince1859–ratherthan,say,inLamarckorGeoffroySaint-HilaireorChambers–indicatesastrongrelation,suchasthatbetweenamodel(Darwin)andacopy(Darwinismasascientifictradition).TheDarwin–Darwinismrelationisincertainrespectsacausalrelation,inthesensethatDarwininfluencedthedebatesthatfollowedhim.Butthereisalsosomethingmore:akindofisomorphismbetweenDarwin’sDarwinismandhistoricalDarwin-ism.ItisasthoughDarwin’sowncontributionhasconstrainedtheconceptualandempiricaldevelopmentofevolutionarybiologyeverafter.Tobringthenatureofthisconstraintintofocus,thischapterun-dertakesabroadsurveyofthehistoryandpresentstateofevolution-arybiologyfromtheviewpointofitsrelationtoDarwinorpresumedDarwinianschemes.Wewillhavetocharacteriseasclearlyaspos-sibleboththecontinuitybetweenDarwinandvariouschangesinevolutionarybiology,andthemajorkindsoftheoreticaldissentsthathaveaccompaniedevolutionarybiologyfrom1859tothepresentday.ThosedissentswillincludedissentsfromthedominantDarwiniantraditionanddissentswithinDarwinism.AnotherdistinctionwewillneedisthatbetweenDarwin’sideaof‘descentwithmodifica-tion’,orthetreeoflife,andhisideaofnaturalselectionasthemaincauseofthemodificationofspecies.Intherestofthechapter,Imakeuseofthisdistinctionasfollows.First,IexaminewhetherdescentwithmodificationhasbeenchallengedafterDarwin.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nFromDarwintotodayinevolutionarybiology279Secondly,IshowthatagooddealofpastandpresentcontroversyoverthetriumphversusthedeclineofDarwinismcanbeunderstoodfromwithintwoperspectivesonnaturalselectionthatDarwinhim-selfdeveloped:naturalselectionasanexistingnaturalprocess;andnaturalselectionasaunifyingandexplanatoryprinciplefortheen-tiretyofphenomenathatconstitutethehistoryoflife.4iithetreeoflifeasthepatternofevolutionItisnowoftensaidthat,sinceDarwin,the‘factofevolution’hasbeenestablishedbeyonddispute.YetDarwinhimselfdidnotoftenusetheword‘evolution’.AlthoughthelastsentenceoftheOriginofSpeciessays(inalleditions)that‘endlessformsmostbeautifulandwonderfulhavebeen,andarebeing,evolved’,Darwindidnotlikehistheoryaboutthebranchingtransmutationofspeciestobecalleda‘theoryofevolution’.NowhereinthefirsteditionoftheOrigincanthephrases‘theoryofevolution’or‘principleofevolu-tion’befound,noreventheword‘evolution’.ForDarwin,andmanyotherEnglishnaturalistsofhisera,‘evolution’wasanambiguousword.Itevokedvarioustheoriesthatcloselyassociatedthehistoryofspecieswithbothindividualdevelopmentandanoverallprogres-sionistinterpretationofthehistoryofnature.Clusteredaround‘evo-lution’were,amongothers,theoldtheoryofembryogenesisastheexpansionofapreformedorganism(thisbeingtheprimarymean-ingof‘evolution’intheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies);theassociatedtheoryofthepre-existenceofgerms,inconnectionwithwhichtheSwissnaturalistCharlesBonnetfirstapplied‘evolution’notonlytoindividualgeneration,buttothehistoryofthesucces-siveappearanceofspecies;5thetranscendentalmorphologyofthenineteenthcentury,withitsemphasisonparallelismsbetweenem-bryogenesisandthegraduatedcomplexityofspecies;andtheBritishphilosopherHerbertSpencer’s‘evolutionist’philosophy,postulatingtheexistenceofauniversalprincipleof‘evolution’or‘development’innature(aprogressivetendencytowardsincreasedcomplexity).6Darwinwasespeciallyfamiliarwiththislattersenseof‘evolution’,anddidnotwanthisscientifictheorytobeconfusedwithSpencer’sphilosophicalspeculation.Thesevariousconnotationsthrowlightonwhy‘evolution’doesnotappearinDarwin’smanuscriptsandpublicationsuptotheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n280jeangayon1870s.7Thepublic,however,wasquicktoassociateSpencer’sphilos-ophyofnatureandDarwin’stheoryofthetransmutationofspecies.Darwinresistedsuchassimilation,andwentonavoidingtheword‘evolution’forsometime.Buthefinallyadopteditinthefinal,sixtheditionoftheOrigin(1872).Thereheusedthewordseventimes,withunequivocalreferencetohisowntheory.Thefirstoccurrenceis:‘Atthepresentdayalmostallnaturalistsadmitevolutionundersomeform.’Afewlineslater,Darwinwritesthatthekindofevolu-tionhefavoursis‘slowandgradualevolution’,notsuddenchanges.Afewmorelines,andwehaveDarwin’sfullformulation:hiswasa‘theoryofgradualevolution,throughthepreservationofalargenumberofindividuals,whichvariedmoreorlessinanyfavourabledirection,andofthedestructionofalargenumberwhichvariedinanoppositemanner’.8Thecontextofthesesentencesisworthnoting.Darwinwasre-spondingindetailtoStGeorgeJacksonMivart,aCatholiczoologistwhoadmittedtheevolutionoforganicformsandtheexistenceofnaturalselection,butopposedDarwinontwopoints:first,Mivartbe-lievedthatevolutionoccurredbysuddenchanges;second,hethoughtthatthemajorevolutionaryfactorwasaninternaltendencytovaryinagivendirection,ratherthannaturalselectionalone.9Mivart–whoseobjectionsweretakenveryseriouslybyDarwin–wastyp-icalofanewgenerationofbiologistsforwhomtheissuewasnotthemodificationversustheindependentcreationofspecies,butthetempoofmodificationanditsexplanation.Insuchacontext,itmadesenseforDarwintoadmitthathewasan‘evolutionist’.OnemayrecallhereapassageinaletterDarwinwrotetoAsaGrayin1863:‘Personally,ofcourse,IcaremuchaboutNaturalSelection,butthatseemstomeutterlyunimportantcomparedtothequestionofCreationorModification.’10Ifamajorityofbiologicalthinkerspreferredtosay‘evolution’ratherthan‘descentwithmodification’,andiftheyacceptedthisidea,thenDarwinhadlittlereasontoobject.Hisfinallinguisticcompromiseiswellrevealedbyanotherpas-sageofthe1872editionoftheOrigin.Inthefirstedition,Darwinhadwritten:‘Ifnumerousspecies,belongingtothesamegeneraoffamilies,havereallystartedintolifeallatonce,thefactwouldbefataltothetheoryofdescentwithslowmodificationthroughnaturalselection.’11Inthelastedition,thefirstpartofthissentencedoesnotchange.Butthesecondpartbecomes:‘thefactwouldbefatalCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nFromDarwintotodayinevolutionarybiology281tothetheoryofevolutionthroughnaturalselection’.12ThischangemakesperfectlyclearthatDarwinadmittedtheword‘evolution’.providedthatitmeant‘descentwithslowmodification’.Whencehisfamousoften-quoteddeclarationinthelastversionoftheconclusivechapter:Iformerlyspoketoverymanynaturalistsonthesubjectofevolution,andneveroncemetwithanysympatheticagreement.Itisprobablethatsomedidthenbelieveinevolution,buttheywereeithersilent,orexpressedthem-selvessoambiguouslythatitwasnoteasytounderstandtheirmeaning.Now,thingsarewhollychanged,andalmosteverynaturalistadmitsthegreatprincipleofevolution.13ThesesentencesarewrittenasifDarwinhadalwaysspokenof‘evo-lution’.Hasscientificconsensusaboutthefactofevolution,thuscon-struedasbranchingdescent,beensignificantlythreatenedafterDarwin?Theclassicalanswertothisquestionis‘no’.AfterafewyearsofturmoilcausedbythepublicationoftheOrigin–sogoesthestory–biologistsstoppeddisputingoverthequestionofthetrans-mutabilityofspecies.Organicevolutionbecamesowidelyacceptedthatbiologistsbegantoseeitasageneralfactratherthanathe-oreticalprinciple.Consequently,controversiesconcentrateduponthecausalexplanationofthisgeneralfact.Wasnaturalselectionthemaincause,orshouldoneexplorealternativefactorsofevolution,suchasaninnertendencyofspeciestoevolveinagivendirection(orthogenesis);adaptationthroughtheinheritanceofacquiredchar-acters(neo-Lamarckianism);orsuddenchangesofspecies(mutation-ism)?PeterBowlerhaswelldescribedthesevariousmodesofpost-Darwinianevolutionismduringthe‘eclipse’ofDarwinisminthedecadesaround1900.14ButBowlerhasnoparallelstorytotellaboutpost-Darwiniancontroversiesovertheveryexistenceoforganicevo-lution.AsimilarobservationcouldbemadeaboutmosthistoricalstudiesonthesubjectoforganicevolutionafterDarwin.Onthewhole,thisconsensuspictureiscertainlyright.AfterDarwin’sdeathin1882,andevenmoresoafter1900,itisalmostimpossibletofindsignificantbiologistswhoplainlyandexplicitlydeniedtheexistenceofevolutioninthesensethatspeciesmodifyandarephysicallyrelatedwithpreviousspeciesthroughuninterruptedgenerations.DenialsofthisideacanbefoundontheborderlinesofCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n282jeangayonthesciences,inthehistory,forexample,ofAmericancreationism,orofsimilarreligiousreactionstobiologicalevolution;andtheseareofcoursenon-negligiblepartsoftheculturalhistoryofmodernscience.15Butsuchdenialsarenotasignificantfeatureofthehistoryofpost-Darwinianbiologyasaprofessionaldiscipline.Morethananythingelse,itisDarwin’stree-of-lifediagramthatsummarisedhisproposalthattheentirehistoryoflifecanberepre-sentedasageneralphenomenonofgradualmodification,splitting,divergenceandextinctionofspecies.Thisdiagram–thesoleillustra-tionintheOrigin–wastremendouslyimportantforDarwin,who,inthefirstedition,devotedtenpagesofcommentstoitinthefourthchapterandtwenty-fivepagesinthethirteenth.Ithadanalmostim-mediateeffectupontheentiretyofthebiologicalcommunity.Withinaremarkablyshortperiodoftime,itbecametheparadigmaticrep-resentationoforganicevolutionanditsstatusasanestablishedfact.ThomasKuhn’sconceptsofscientificrevolutionandparadigmshiftareexactlyappropriatehere.16SomehistorianshaveclaimedthatDarwin’stheorydidnotfirstfunctionasaparadigminthehistoryofscience,butratherthereverse:itopenedalongperiodofcrisis.17Certainlythatistrueofnaturalselection.Butthesamedoesnotapplytodescentwithmodification.Retrospectively,thesuddenanddramaticeffectofthefamoustree-of-lifediagramconstitutesoneofthemostspectacularexamplesofashiftofparadigm.ThekindoftheoryembodiedinDarwin’sdiagramisnotacausaltheory,inthesenseofanassemblyofhypothesesaboutthemecha-nismsthatgoverngivenprocesses.Rather,itisatheorythatpostu-latesthegeneralexistenceinnatureofseveralclassesofphenomena,suchasthegradualmodificationofspecies,splittingandsoforth.Suchatheorylookslikeadescriptivegeneralisation,butitisnot:itisaheuristicdevice,aplausiblebetaboutthegeneralformandpaceofthebigclassesofphenomenathatconstituteorganicevolution.Ofcourse,themorescientistsaccumulatedatawithinsuchaframe-work,themoretheytendtoconsiderthisframeworkasaliteraldescriptionofthecontentsoftheworld.Thisisexactlywhathap-penedtoDarwin’sdiagram.Alongwiththekeyconceptsembeddedwithinit,thediagramquicklybecameaconsensualrepresentationofthegeneralfactofevolution.ItisdifficulttoimagineamoresuccessfulaspectofDarwinismthantheideaofthetreeoflife.ThewholeindustryofevolutionaryCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nFromDarwintotodayinevolutionarybiology283biologyhasbeenbaseduponitforalmostacenturyandahalf.Soonafter1859,biologistsandpalaeontologistsbeganconstructingspe-cificphylogenetictrees,andthisisstilltodayoneofthemajordi-mensionsofevolutionarybiology.18Systematistsmaydisagreeontheappropriatemethodforthereconstructionandinterpretationofphylogenies;buttheyhardlydisagreeontheextremeimportanceofthisenterprise.19Strictlyspeaking,ofcourse,Darwinwasnottheinventorofthismodeofpractice.Buthewastheonewhogaveitasystematicbasis,understooditstremendousheuristicpower,andfoundtheappropriatewordsandimagesforitsdiffusion.iiicriticalperspectivesonthetree-of-lifeideaNevertheless,forallthestrengthandlongevityofconsensussur-roundingthefactofspeciesbranching,therehavebeenatleastthreeseriouschallengestocertainaspectsofDarwin’stree-of-lifepicture.Eachofthesechallenges,orclassesofcriticism,relatestotheformortheshapeofthetree.Afirstclassofcriticismemphasisesthatevolutionissomethingthatdoesnothappenonlyatthelevelofthespecies,butalsoatotherlevels.Criticismalongtheselineshasitsbasisinarathercommonobservationinpalaeontology:thatthehighertaxainanimalsandplants–forexample,thevariousordersofmammals–tendtoap-pearanddiversifysuddenly,givingrisetomorphologicaltypeswithgeneralcharacteristicsthatremainapproximatelystableeverafter.Theinferenceisthatthepatternoflifeislessofatreethanabush,withmoreorlessparalleltwigsarisingfromagivenlevel.Foranyparticulartaxonomicgroup,thebranchingpatternwilllooklikeacandelabra.Afurthervariantofthis‘bushoflife’idea,quitepopularamongbiologistsintheperiodfrom1880to1930,supposesthatthelineagescomposingthehighertaxonomicgroupsevolveinasimilardirection.Thegeneralemphasisonbushinessoftengoesalongwithaweakeningoftheideasofgradualmodificationandindefinitedi-vergenceofspecies.Onthisview,speciesorgeneraorevenfamiliesmaychange,splitanddiverge;but,atahigherlevel,somethingdif-ferenthappens,somethingwhichisnotjustamasseffectofwhathappensatthelevelofspecies.Suchaviewhasoccasionallybeenputforwardbypalaeon-tologistsandmorphologists,especiallythoseadvocatingatheoryCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n284jeangayonofevolutionbaseduponacombinationoforthogenesisandmuta-tionism.SignificantexamplesofthistrendofthinkingcanbefoundintheworksofpalaeontologistssuchasKarlvonZittel,CharlesDep´eret,OttoSchindewolfandtheFrenchzoologistLouis´Vialleton.20Thelatterusedtosaythat‘transformism’–thecommonLamarckian–Darwinianrepresentationofthehistoryoflife–shouldnotbeequatedwith‘evolution’.For‘thereexistsanabsolutediffer-encebetweenthediversificationormultiplicationofspecies,andtheevolutionorformationoftypesororganisation’.21Suchlanguage,ofcourse,isincompatiblewithanyformofDarwinism.Buttwentieth-centuryevolutionarybiologistsdoadmitthatthemodificationanddiversificationofspeciesmayhaveverydifferenttempos.TheAmer-icanpalaeontologistG.G.Simpson’snotionofquantumevolutionandthecommonacceptanceofsuch‘bigbang’eventsasthePrecam-brian‘explosion’belongtothistradition.22Asecond,relatedclassofcriticismhasbeenraisedbyallthosebiologistswhohaveadvocatedanon-gradual,orsaltationist,rep-resentationoftheoriginofspecies.SinceThomasHuxley,FrancisGaltonandthemajorityoftheearlyMendelians(includingWilliamBateson,HugoDeVries,LucienCuenot,WilhelmJohannsenand,´somewhatlater,RichardGoldschmidt),saltationistshavebeenex-tremelynumerous.Today,thismajoralternativeviewofdescentwithmodificationisrepresentedbyNilesEldredgeandStephenJayGould’s‘theoryofpunctuatedequilibrium’,postulatingthatthepre-ponderantamountofevolutionarychangeisconcentratedduringtheeventsofspeciationor‘cladogenesis’.23EldredgeandGoulddonotclaimthatthechangeleadingtoanewspeciesissosuddenthatitoccursinasinglegeneration(assomegeneticistsbelievedatthebe-ginningofthetwentiethcentury).Onthebasisofpalaeontologicaldata,theyargueinsteadthat,atageologicalscale,speciesevolvemuchmorerapidlywhentheyemergefromsplittingthantheydothereafter.Saltationistviewsofevolutionentailanobviousmodi-ficationofthegeneralpatternofthegenealogicaltree.Insteadofbranchesthatprogressivelydiverge,thetreewillhavetheshapeofsuccessivesmallcandelabraswithtwobranches.Saltationistconceptionsaremostoftenencompassedfromthepointofviewofcausalprocessesratherthanpatterns.Indeed,ifwedonottakeaccountofthedetailofthemultiplicationofparticularspecies,thegenealogicaltreeofagivengroupontheEldredge–GouldCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nFromDarwintotodayinevolutionarybiology285modelwillhaveanoverallappearanceroughlysimilartotheDar-winiandiagram.Therelationbetweenpatternandprocesshereisthis:if,assaltationistsmaintain,divergenceofspeciesismainlyaccomplishedthroughsplitting,ratherthanthroughgradualmodi-ficationsubsequenttosplitting,thenthecausaltheoryofevolutionshouldprimarilyfocusonsplittingratherthanmodification.24Thetwopreviousclassesofcriticismcoverawidespectrumofauthorssince1859.Thethirdisrecent.Itbearsuponthepostu-latethatthehistoryofbiologicaldiversityisadequately(orsuffi-ciently)representedbyatreeofirreversibledivergenceofspecies.Theworryhereisthatevolutionatalargetimescalemightwellinvolveseveralprocessesthatcontradictthispostulate.Onesuchprocessisthelateraltransferofgenesinmicroorganisms.For,say,agroupofmodernbacteria,afractionofthegenomecanbeiso-latedwhileanotherfractionrecombineswiththegenomesofothergroupsofbacteria.Thisphenomenonrendersthenotionofinde-pendentspecieslineagesproblematic.Toacertainextent,lineagesofgenesseemtobeasimportantaslineagesoforganismsandofspecies.Divergencebetweenspeciesinbacteriadoesexist;butitisonlyonesideoftheirevolutionarystory.Speciesthathavedi-vergedforalongtimecangoonexchangingimportantfractionsoftheirgenomes(suchasfactorsofresistancetoantibiotics).More-over,microbiologistssuspectthatlateralgenetransferwasmuchmorecommoninthepastthanitisnow.CarlWoese,themolec-ularbiologistwhoestablishedtheexistenceofthegroupArchaea,hasbeenamajorprotagonistinthisdebateonthephylogenyoftheentirelivingworld.25Woesehasprovidedavividformulationoftheproblem:Lateralgenetransferwaspartandparceloftheuniversalancestor.Thatancestorwasacommunalentity,acommunitythatsurvivedandevolvedasawhole,asanaggregate,notasindividuallineages...Inmyview,thehighestleveltaxa,thedomains[i.e.Archaea,Bacteria,Eucarya]neednotreflecttheevolutionarycoursethatsplittheuniversalancestorintotheindividualancestorsofthethreeprimarylinesofdescent.Thisisnotamat-terofcatalogingextantorganisms.Norisitevenamatterofrepresentinggenealogicalrelationships.Modernphenotypesdidnotexistandorganis-malgenealogiesprobablyhadnomeaningatthetimewhenthedomainsformed...Evolutionatthisearlystagewasprobablyasymphonyoflateralgeneflow.26CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n286jeangayonConsideringthat90percentofpresentterrestrialbiomassismicro-bial,andthatthefirstthreebillionyearsoforganicevolutionwereexclusivelymicrobial,Woese’sproposalisamajorchallengeindeedtotheclassicalDarwinianviewofthegenealogyoflivingbeings.Atthemostinclusivelevelofdescription,Darwin’sdiagramshowsitslimits:organismalandspeciesgenealogiesencapsulateonlyonefractionoftheentiregraphofdescentwithmodification.Anotherprocesslikelytohaveaprofoundimpactonthecommonarborescentrepresentationofgenealogicalrelationshipsbetweenor-ganismsissymbiosis,whichhascertainlybeenamajorevolutionaryprocess,especiallyincellevolution.27Itisstillprobablyanimpor-tantphenomenon.Althoughtheprocessitselfiswellunderstood,itsconsequencesforphylogeneticpatternsarenot.Butsymbiosiswillalmostcertainlybeamajortopicforfutureevolutionary-biologicalenquiry.Symbiosisdoesnotchallengethenotionofirreversibledi-vergence.Separateorganismsthatfuseinitiatenewspeciesthatdi-vergeasdoothers.But,byenablingthepossibilityofmajorfusioneventsbetweenevolutionarilyremotegroups,symbiosisintroducescomplicationsthatcannotbeeasilyassimilatedintoasimpletree-likepatternofphylogeny.Darwin’sprincipleofbranchingdescentturnsouttobeatheo-reticalprincipleafterall.Itinvolvesaseriesofheuristicpostulatesaboutwhatthegeneralpatternofthehistoryoflifecouldlooklike.28Darwin’sheuristicpostulatesaboutthegeneralshapeoftheeventsconstitutingthehistoryoflifehaveprovedtobeimmenselyfer-tile.Theyfosteredthediscoveryoftheevolutionaryrelationshipsbetweeninnumerableorganisms.Theyalsopavedthewayforanum-berofvaluabledescriptivegeneralisationsaboutmanygroupsofor-ganisms.ThisiswhysomanybiologistscametobelievethatthepostulatesbehindDarwin’streeamountedtoageneralfactofna-ture.But,likeallothersuchpostulates,thebranchingtreeoflifemaybesubjecttorevisioninthelightofnewtheoreticalandempir-icalknowledge.ivnaturalselectionasthemainevolutionaryprocessIntheOrigin,Darwinhadadoublestrategyforjustifyingbeliefinnaturalselection.ThefirststrategywastoprovideinductiveCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nFromDarwintotodayinevolutionarybiology287argumentsinfavouroftheexistenceandadequacyofnaturalselectionasacausalprocess.Thesecondstrategywashypothetico-deductive:itconsistedinshowingthatnaturalselectionexplainsandunifiesvariousclassesofindependentfacts.29Since1859,chal-lengestonaturalselectionhavebeenmountedagainstbothpartsofthisgeneralargument.Whatwentintoeclipseduringtheso-called‘eclipseofDarwin-ism’wastheideathatnaturalselectionisacauseofadaptiveevo-lutionarychange.Mostattacksbetween1859andthe1930sindeedtargetedtheveryexistenceofnaturalselection.Therewereanum-berofimpressivedifficulties.OnewastheabsenceintheOriginofatheoryofhereditarytransmissionofcharacters.Darwinpostu-latedthatvariationwasheritable,buthedidnotproveit,nordidheindicatethemechanismofinheritance.Didparentalcharactersblendintheprogeny,orweretheytransmittedasdiscreteentities?Andhowdidthemechanismofinheritanceaffecttheefficiencyofnaturalselection?30Anotherdifficultyresultedfromtheapparentrarityofadaptivechangeandthesmallnessoftheadvantageaccruingfromsuchchange,especiallyincomparisonwiththeconsiderablerateofelim-inationofindividualsinmostspecies.Forinstance,ifagivenvari-ationincreasesthechancesofsurvivalbyoneinfiftyandoccursinoneindividualinamillion,inaspecieswhereoneindividualperhundredsurvivestoreproduce,thentheprobabilityishighthattheadvantageousvariationwillbelostbychance.TheScottishengineerFleemingJenkinraisedtheissuewithoutstandingperspicacityinhis1867reviewoftheOrigin.31Jenkin’sreviewmadeitcleartoanumberofpeoplethatthedemonstrationoftheexistenceofnaturalselectionasanefficientcauseforthemodificationofspeciesrequirednotonlyclarificationoftheproblemofheredity,butthedevelopmentofaquantitativeapproachtophenomenasuchasvari-ation,advantage,rateofsurvival,rateofreproductionandtheroleofchance.ThecomplexitiesprovedtobegreaterthananythingDarwincouldhaveanticipated.Ittookapproximatelyseventyyearsforbiol-ogistsandmathematicianstodeveloptheappropriatetools.InspiredbyGalton’spopulationalstudiesofinheritance,‘biometricians’suchasKarlPearsonandW.F.R.Weldonplayedaprominentroleinrefor-mulatingnaturalselectioninstatisticalterms.WhenthisstatisticalapproachwasinturnenrichedbythenewMendeliangeneticsintheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n288jeangayonearlyyearsofthetwentiethcentury,thereemergedatheoryofhered-itarytransmissioncapableofunderwritingapredictivetheoryoftheevolutionofpopulations.Thisnewgeneticsofpopulationsprovidedthefirstfirmbasisuponwhichthequestionsofthepossibility,ex-istenceandlimitsofnaturalselectionasacauseofevolutioncouldbeproperlyassessed.32Initially,intheyearsaftertherediscoveryin1900ofGregorMendel’sseminal1865paperonsomelawsgoverninghybridisa-tion,Darwinismand‘Mendelism’wereoftenthoughtopposed;forMendelism,inanumberofways,seemedtosupportsaltationistmutationismratherthangradualselectionism.Bythe1920sthisoppositionwasresolved,thanksmainlytotheDrosophilaflyexper-imentalistsworkingunderThomasHuntMorganatColumbiaUni-versityandanothergroupunderWilliamCastleatHarvard.Alongwithanewinterpretationofgenesaslinearlyarrangedonchromo-somes,aviewnowemergedthatmutationsofMendeliangeneswerenon-Lamarckianand,generally,quiteinadequatetoproduceadaptiveandprogressiveevolutionarychangeontheirown,withoutnaturalselection.Firstofall,mutationsaroseatverylowratesandweremostlyrecessiveanddisadvantageous.Inthoserarecaseswheremutationschancedtobeadvantageous,naturalselectionwastheonlyprocessthatcouldguaranteetheirdiffusionthroughthepopu-lation.Furthermore,itbecameclearthatcontinuousvariationinatraitcouldbeexplainedasamacroscopiceffectoftheinfluenceofalargenumberofseparatelyactinggenes(polygenicdeterminism).TheupshotwastherehabilitationoftheDarwinianconceptofnaturalselectionasaprocessthatactsoninfinitesimallysmalldifferences,producingagradualtransformationofspecies.Inthisway,anewunderstandingofhereditaryvariationsavedselectionfromtheoldJenkinianobjection.Italsovindicatedselectionasanecessaryand,indeed,sufficientcauseofadaptiveevolution.33Buildingonthesevindicationsofselection,themathematicalpop-ulationgeneticsofR.A.Fisher,J.B.S.HaldaneandSewallWright,whowroteinthelate1920sandearly1930s,constitutedthemajorintellectualeventinthehistoryoftheorisingaboutnaturalselectionafterDarwin,foratleastthreereasons.34First,thisscienceprovidedaclarificationoftheroleofnaturalselectioninevolution.Intheo-reticalpopulationgenetics,naturalselectiondoesnotautomaticallymodifyapopulation.Rather,selectionisaforcethatactsmoreorlessCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nFromDarwintotodayinevolutionarybiology289efficientlydependingonabalanceofvariousparameters.Themainparametersaremutationrate,selectionpressure,randomgeneticdriftandmigration.35Thesecanopposeeachotherorco-operate.Inotherwords,allevolutionarymodificationinapopulationisnotpre-sumptivelyduetonaturalselection.Itisbutonefactoramongotherfactorsinasortof‘mechanicsofevolution’(Haldane’sexpression).Whethernaturalselectionis,asDarwinonceputit,a‘paramountpower’,isanempiricalmatter,dependingoncircumstances.36Thesecondcontributionofpopulationgeneticswastocatalyseboththewidespreadacceptanceofnaturalselectionandthesearchfordirectproofofitsoperationinaparticularcase.Notthataccep-tancewaiteduponproof.Thefirstconclusiveevidenceforevolu-tionarychangecausedbynaturalselectioncameonlyinthe1950s–almostonecenturyaftertheOrigin–withH.B.D.Kettlewell’sfamousworkonindustrialmelanisminthepepperedmoth.37Popu-lationgeneticsmadeKettlewell’sachievementpossible.Butnaturalselectionbythistimewasalreadyamainstreambiologicalbelief.Ithadbecomeaworkingparadigmforthevariousdisciplinesthatto-getherformedthe‘ModernSynthesis’inthe1930sand1940s:experi-mentalgenetics,thegeneticsofnaturalorexperimentalpopulations,animalandplantsystematics,andpalaeontology.InthisspectaculartriumphofDarwinism,theoreticalpopulationgenetics,asbuiltupbyFisher,WrightandHaldane,playedamajorrole.Itprovidedcom-pellingtheoreticalreasonsforthinkingthatnaturalselectionwasamajorcauseinevolution.Itprovidedefficienttoolsfordetectingnaturalselectioninnature(asdistinctfromothercauses).Anditdefinedthemethodologicalconditionsunderwhichanexhaustivedirectdemonstrationofaparticularcaseofnaturalselectioncouldbeaccomplished.Finally,populationgeneticsbroughtaboutanimportantreformu-lationofnaturalselectionitself.AsFishershowed,theMalthusianprincipleisnotanecessaryconditionoftheexistenceofnaturalselection.38Naturalselectioncanbeefficientinapopulationwithno‘checktoincrease’.Itfollowsthattherateofreproductionofagivenspeciesisnotapreconditionofnaturalselection,butisitselftheresultofevolutionbynaturalselection.Fornaturalselectiontohappen,onlythreeconditionsarerequired:heritablevariation,differ-entialfitnessandcorrelationbetweenthesetwophenomena.Today,thisgeneralisedconceptofnaturalselectionhasbeenextendedCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n290jeangayonbeyondthedomainofpopulationgenetics;butpopulationgeneti-cistswerethefirsttoappreciatetheconceptualshiftfully.39Thisrevivalofnaturalselectionbythenewgeneticswaspur-suedmostcomprehensivelyinTheodosiusDobzhansky’sinfluen-tialbookGeneticsandtheOriginofSpecies,firstpublishedin1937.HereDobzhanskybroughttogetherthreekindsofgenetics:thenewmathematicalpopulationgenetics,especiallyashehadlearneditinpersonalcollaborationswithWright;thecytologicalgeneticsoftheMorganschool,whichDobzhanskyhadjoinedin1927(onarriv-ingintheUnitedStatesfromtheSovietUnion);andthepioneeringRussianworkontheexperimentalgeneticsofwildpopulations,es-peciallyDrosophilidflies–workmeshingcloselywithhisownear-liestresearchesonthetaxonomyandbiogeographyofladybeetles.Thebookself-consiouslybroughtthewholeofgeneticstoareaffir-mationofDarwin’slegacy.(Indeed,Dobzhanskyonceslippedinaspeechandtalkedof‘Darwin’sgreatbook,GeneticsandtheOriginofSpecies’.40)Withinafewmoreyears,JulianHuxley,thegrandsonofDarwin’sdefenderT.H.Huxley,hadpublishedanevenmorewide-rangingtext,Evolution:TheModernSynthesis(1942).Claimingthatevolu-tionwas‘themostcentralandthemostimportantoftheproblemsofbiology’,Huxleyannounced‘there-animationofDarwinism’,onthebasisof‘factsandmethodsfromeverybranchofthescience–ecology,genetics,palaeontology,geographicaldistribution,embryology,sys-tematics,comparativeanatomy’.41Huxley’sconfidencerecallsthesecondaspectofDarwin’sjustificationoftheprincipleofnaturalselection:theexplanatorypoweroftheprinciple.Indeed,anumberoftheOrigin’schapterstrytoshowthatnaturalselection‘explainsseverallargeandindependentclassesoffacts’:notonlymorphologi-caladaptations,butalsoinstincts,divergence,extinction,geographicdistributionofpresentandpastspecies,andsoon.42ThisexplanatoryambitionofDarwinismbecameamajorcommitmentoftheMod-ernSynthesis.Thebiologistsandpalaeontologistswhoparticipatedinthismovementtriedhardtoshowthat,initsmodernisedgenet-icalversion,naturalselectionwasamajorprincipleintheexpla-nationofsuchphenomenaasgeographicalvariation,speciation,ex-tinction,thetempoofevolutionandphylogenetictrends.Thesewerecharacteristicsubjectsofthefoundersofthesynthesis:Dobzhansky(genetics),HuxleyandMayr(zoology),Simpson(palaeontology)CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nFromDarwintotodayinevolutionarybiology291andG.LedyardStebbins(plantbiology).After1950,theSynthesisfavouredtheexpansionofDarwinianmodesofexplanationintostillotherfields,suchasethology(KonradLorenz,NikolaasTinbergen),ecology(DavidLack,RobertMacArthurandE.O.Wilson),evolu-tionaryembryology(C.H.Waddington)andmorphology(notablyallometry–thestudyofdifferentialgrowthratesfordifferentpartsofanorganism).43In1959,theyearofthecentenaryofthepublicationoftheOrigin,thetriumphofnaturalselectionasanexplanatoryprincipleseemedtohavenolimit.44Inthesubsequentfortyyearsorso,however,evolutionarybiologistshavebecomemorecircumspect.Theircon-cernsbasicallyfallintotwocategories:thosedealingwithmicro-evolution(thatis,evolutionarychangesatthelevelofspecies)andthoseconcernedwithmacro-evolution(thatis,evolutionarychangesonalargerscale).vthemicro-evolutionarycritiqueofnaturalselectionAtthelevelofmicro-evolution,naturalselectiontraditionallyex-plainsadaptations.45Contestingtheexplanatorypowerofnaturalselectionatthislevelhastakenseveralforms.Onestrategyistore-vealapparentlyadaptivefeaturesasnon-adaptiveandthusbeyondtherealmofnaturalselection.Anotherstrategyistoshowthattherearegenuinelyadaptivefeaturesthatarenonethelessoutofnaturalselection’sexplanatoryreach.Athirdandmoreradicalstrategyistoshowthat,incertaincircumstances,naturalselectioncanfailtoac-complishwhatitiswidelysupposedtodo,namelyincreasefitness.SincetheModernSynthesis,evolutionarybiologistshavedebatedanti-adaptationchallengesofallthreesorts.ThediscoveryofalargeamountofpolymorphismatthelevelofproteinsandDNAclearlyconstitutedachallengeofthefirstsort:somethingpreviouslytakenforgrantedasadaptivenowappearedtobenon-adaptive.Thequestionwaswhethersuchpolymorphismisexplicablebynaturalselectionorrequiressomeotherexplanation.46ThislatterpossibilitywasexploredmostfamouslybytheJapanesegeneticistMotooKimurainhisneutral-mutation/random-driftthe-oryofmolecularevolution,latercalledhistheoryof‘non-Darwinianevolution’.47FollowingKimura,‘neutralists’proposethatalargeCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n292jeangayonamountofvariationatthemolecularlevelisneutralwithrespecttonaturalselection.Theydonotsaythatevolutionarychangeismostlyneutral.Rather,theymakeanimportantdistinctionbetweenchangeattheorganismiclevelandchangeatthemolecularlevel.Ontheirview,attheorganismiclevel,naturalselectionisindeedtheparamountpowerandvirtuallycontrolsthemajorityofevolu-tionarychange.Atthemolecularlevel,however,thereexistsahugeamountofvariationwhichisinvisibletonaturalselection.Accord-ingtoKimura,mostmutationsatthelevelofnucleotidesdisappearorgetfixedthroughtheactionofstochasticfactorssuchasgeneticdrift.Whatnaturalselectioncontrolsatthegeneticlevelisthelim-itedfractionofmutationsthataffectorganismiccharacters.Theneu-tralistclaimthatnaturalselectiondoesnotmakeuseofahugeamountofvariationatthegeneticlevelwasdifficultformanyDarwinianbiologiststoacceptwhenitfirstappeared.Thattheclaimisnowwidelyacceptedisagoodsignofcontemporarybiologists’subtlerattituderegardingtheexplanatorypowerofnaturalselection.Thechallengerepresentedbythetheoryofgroupselectionisthemostimportantexampleofachallengebasedontheapparentim-possibilityofnaturalselection,traditionallyconstrued,toaccountforcertainadaptivenaturalfeatures.48Atissueiswhethernaturalselectioninitsclassicalform–selectionoftraitsamongindividuals–canexplaintheoriginofattributesthatareadvantageoustoagroup.ThedebategoesbacktoDarwin,whoalmostcompletelyrejectedthenotionofgroupselection.HehadafamousprivatecontroversyonthesubjectwithWallace.ThereisonlyonecasewhereDarwinplainlyadmittedtheexistenceof‘tribalselection’,whenhetriedtoexplaintheoriginofthemoralsenseinthehumanspecies.49Later,whenpopulationgeneticsemergedinthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury,groupselectionwaseitherexplicitlyrejected(asbyFisher)orlargelyignored.50Althoughitsuperficiallyresemblesgroupselection,Wright’stheoryof‘inter-demic’selectionwasinfactquitedifferent.Wright’sideawasthat,oncegroupshaveacquiredfittergenotypesinagivenenvironment,theytendtodiffusethosegeno-typesamongothergroupswithwhichtheycomeincontact.Thisisnotthesameasthegroup-selectionalideathattraitsmightbeselectedbecausetheybenefitthegroupassuch.Whengroupselectionbecameatalkingpointinthe1960s,itwasofteninconjunctionwithconcernsaboutevolutionaryaltruism.51CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nFromDarwintotodayinevolutionarybiology293Altruistictraitsaretraitsdetrimentaltotheindividual’sfitnessbutadvantageousforthegroup.Evolutionaryaltruismshouldnotbecon-foundedwithmoralaltruisminhumans(althoughmoralaltruismcanpossiblybeinterpretedasaspecialcaseofevolutionaryaltru-ism);most‘altruistic’traitsdiscussedbycontemporaryevolutionarybiologistsrefertoinsects,worms,bacteriaandevenviruses.Groupselectionrequiresspecialmodels,whichinvolvethepartialisola-tionandperiodicfusionofgroups.Groupswithaltruistsgrowfasterthanthosewithnoaltruists.Butaltruiststendtodisappearwithinthegroupbecauseoftheirlowerfitness.Theonlyway,itseems,forgroupselectiontooccuristhroughtheextinctionofselfishgroupsorsubmersionbythealtruisticgroups.52Claimsabouttheexistenceandextentofgroupselectioninnaturehavegeneratedintensecontroversiesamongpopulationgeneticists.SincetheModernSynthesis,whenDarwin’s‘individualistic’con-ceptofselectionwasadoptedandevenreinforced,groupselectionhasbeenperceivedasamajordeparturefromthetraditionalunder-standingofnaturalselection.Onthatunderstanding,explanationsofaltruistictraitsoughttorelyuponvariousmodesofgenicselec-tion,incombinationwithconceptssuchaskinselectionormoregenerallythetheoryofgames.Nevertheless,theperceptionofgroupselectionasathreattoDarwinismreflectstoonarrowaconceptionofDarwinism.Groupselection,ifitexists,broadenstheapplicationoftheconceptofnaturalselectionratherthancontradictsit.Groupselectionisprobablyanimportantprocessinvolvedinphenomenasuchastheoriginandmaintenanceofsexandtheevolutionofviru-lenceinmicro-organisms.Ifitcomestoberegardedasamajormodeofnaturalselection,thehistorianwilljustifiablybeabletocharac-terisegroupselectionasbothanti-Darwinian(sinceDarwinandhismajorfollowersformorethanacenturyregardeditthatway)andaninterestingexpansionofthecontentofDarwin’scentraltheory.Moreover,thehistorianshould,asnoted,alsoaddthatgroupselec-tionwasalreadyinplacewhenthetheoryofnaturalselectionwasborn.WallaceandDarwindebatedthematteroverandoveragaininletters,nevercomingtoanagreement.Themoderncontroversyis,inthissense,anexplorationofatheoreticalpossibilitythatwaspartoftheinitialschema.ThemostdramaticobjectionthatcouldbemadetonaturalselectionisthatthisprocesscanjustfailtoaccomplishwhatitisCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n294jeangayonwidelysupposedtodo,thatisincreasefitness,oradaptationintheDarwiniansenseofcompetitivehighness.Sometheoreticalbiolo-gistsclaimthattheemergingtheoryofcomplexityimposeslimitsofthissort.StuartKauffmaninparticularhasdefendedthethesisthatcomplexityimposesseriouslimitstotheadaptivepowerofnaturalselection.53Throughgeneticregulation,thegenomesoforganismsaretypicallycomplexsystems,withlotsofconnectivity.Kauffmanarguesthatanumberofpropertiesofthesesystemsariseasafunc-tionoftheirdegreeofintrinsiccomplexity,whatevertheselectivepressuresappliedtothem.These‘genericproperties’,ashecallsthem,cannotbeviewedasthespecificresultsofselection.Theyemergenotbynaturalselectionbutby‘self-organisation’.Further-more,theremaybeasenseinwhichcomplexityrestrictsthefieldofpossibleadaptivesolutions.Kauffmanandothercontemporarythe-oreticalpopulationgeneticistsarguethat,beyondacertaindegreeofcomplexity,thereareseriouslimitstotheabilityoforganicsystemstoevolvetowardshigherfitnessoreventomaintainthemselvesatagivenleveloffitness.Variouskindsof‘complexitycatastrophes’ariseasafunctionoftheorganisationalconstraintsimposedonthesystem.Thiskindofcriticismisimpressive,becauseitchallengesthemostintuitiveaspectofnaturalselectionasacausalprocess:nat-uralselectionshouldatleastincreasefitness.(‘Canwedoubt’,askedDarwin,‘...thatindividualshavinganyadvantage,howeverslight,overothers,wouldhavethebestchanceofsurvivingandofpro-creatingtheirkind?’.54)Nevertheless,itisfarfromthefirstresultoftwentieth-centurytheoreticalbiologytochallengetheintuitivenotionofnaturalselection.Afterall,geneticdriftandselfishbe-haviourareclassicalexamplesoffactorsthatlimitthecapacityofnaturalselectiontoincreasethefitnessofapopulation.Complexitymustnowbeaddedtothelongandlong-standinglistoffactorsthatrestricttheadaptivepowerofnaturalselection‘fromtheinside’.vithemacro-evolutionarycritiqueofnaturalselectionThesecriticismsofnaturalselectiondonotreallythreatenDarwin-ismasascientificparadigm.Afterall,noneofthemsuggeststhatadaptations,whentheyexist,canbeexplainedbyanythingotherCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nFromDarwintotodayinevolutionarybiology295thannaturalselection.Aswehaveseen,neutralmutationsarenotadaptations;altruistictraitscanbeexplainedbyanenlargedcon-ceptofselection;andself-organisation,whileitcangenerateorderoropposenaturalselection,doesnotofitselfproduceadaptation.Inthepastfortyyears,itisnotthemicro-evolutionaryphenomenaofadaptation,butseveralmacro-evolutionaryphenomenawhichhaveproducedthemostseriouscracksintheDarwinianedifice.Darwinhimselfthoughtthatextinction,divergence,thedistribu-tionoforganismsinspace,thegeneralshapeofclassificationandthegenealogyoflifeweregenuinelyexplainedandunifiedbythetheoryofnaturalselection.InDarwin’sterms,thisexplanatorycapa-cityofnaturalselectionwasthereal‘test’ofitsacceptabilityas‘awell-groundedtheory’.Seventy-eightyearslater,DobzhanskywrotesomethinginthesameveininhisGeneticsandtheOriginofSpecies:‘Experienceseemstoshow...thatthereisnowaytowardsanunder-standingofthemechanismsofmacro-evolutionarychanges,whichrequiretimeonageologicalscale,otherthanthroughafullcom-prehensionofthemicro-evolutionaryprocessesobservablewithinthespanofahumanlifetimeandoftencontrolledbyman’swill.’55ForDobzhansky,ifnaturalselectionisthemainforcethatorientsmicro-evolutionarychange–athesisthatfinallyprevailedamongallthefoundersoftheModernSynthesis–thenitfollowsthatnaturalselectionisthecornerstoneofmacro-evolutionarytheory.Butsuchreasoninghasbeenvigorouslycontestedwithinmod-ernevolutionarybiology.Palaeobiologyasadisciplineemergedoutofaconvictionthatmacro-evolutionrequiresspecificcausaltheo-riesandmodesofexplanationwhich,whilecompatiblewithmicro-evolutionaryprocesses,cannotbereducedtothem.Themostcon-vincingexampleofthiswayofthinkinghasbeenDavidRaup’sworkonextinction.Inabookrecallingalifetimeofinvestigationintoex-tinction,RaupexplainswithprecisionwhytheclassicalDarwinianaccountofextinctionisunsatisfying.56Intheclassicalview,per-fectlyexplicitinDarwin’sOrigin,extinctionisaconsequenceofnaturalselection.Asnaturalselectiontransformsspecies,someofthemhappentobefitterinthecompetitionwithotherspecies.Thelessfavouredformsdecreaseinnumberandfinallygoextinct.57Raupdoesnotdenythatspeciesgoextinctinthisway.Herecog-nises,moreover,thatDarwin’sintuitionhasgeneratedagreatdealofinterestingresearchintheecologyofextinction.ButhesaysthatCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n296jeangayonthisisnotthewholestory.InRaup’sview,massextinctioneventshavebeenratherfrequentinthehistoryoftheearth,evenifmostofthemhavenotbeenasspectacularasthemassextinctionsattheendofthePermianandtheCretaceousperiods.Somuchmassex-tinctioncanhardlybeexplainedonlyonthebasisofbioticfactors,andevenlessonthebasisofinterspecificcompetitionalone.Ma-jorphysicalchangesseemtobeinvolved,withcomplexecologicalconsequences.Inepisodesofmassextinction,speciesgoextinctnotbecauseoftheirrelativesuccessintheecologicaltheatre,butbecausetheyareillequippedtofacebrutalperturbationoftheirphysicalen-vironment.AnespeciallyinterestingaspectofRaup’spositionishisattitudetowardsnaturalselection.Heinsiststhathisinterpretationofextinctiondoesnotrefutenaturalselection,whichremainstheonlypossibleexplanationforadaptations.Butheaddsthatnaturalselectionalonecouldnothaveproducedmassextinctionevents,ortheexplosivediversificationthatmostoftenfollowssuchevents.Insuchcases,naturalselectionismerelyalocalagent,notthefundamentalcauseaccountingforthegeneralpatternofevents.Al-thoughRaupclaimstobeaDarwinian,thiskindofargumentisanexcellentexampleofadeparturefromDarwinisminthesenseofwhatDarwinnamedthe‘well-groundedtheory’ofnaturalselection.ForRaup,thetheoryisneitheranecessarynorasufficientexpla-nationforthepatternsofextinctionanddiversificationobservedbythepalaeobiologist.Other,similarchallengestoDarwin’sgrandtheorycanbeeasilyidentifiedinmacro-evolutionarystudies.Theproponentsofpunctu-atedequilibriahavecontestedthetraditionalDarwinianaccountofdivergence.Forthem,morphologicaldivergenceisnotprimarilytheresultofcontinuedselection,butaconsequenceofspeciation.Aswehaveseen,onthisaccount,mostofthemorphologicalchangeisconcentratedintheperiodwhencladogenesisisaccomplished.Nat-uralselectionmayandmustsurelyplayaroleinthisprocess.Butitisthepaceofspeciation(andextinction)events,nottheintrinsicmechanicsofnaturalselection,thatdeterminesthegenealogicalandmacro-ecologicalpatternsobservedatalargegeologicalscale.58Itisunclearwhatkindofcausaltheoriescouldexplainandunifypatternsinterpretedinthisway.Perhapstherearenosuchtheoriestobehad,butonlyevermorecompletecataloguesoftheuniquesequencesofcausesandeffectswhich,together,constitutetheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nFromDarwintotodayinevolutionarybiology297historyoflife.Presentknowledgeaboutmassextinctionandexplo-sivediversificationseemstoindicatethatthesekindsofhistoricaleventsindeedcannotbesubsumedunderasinglecausaltheory.Ifthisisso,thenthereisnopointinlookingforatheorytoreplaceDarwin’sexplanationofmacro-evolutionthroughnaturalselection.Theaimmustinsteadbethemoremodestoneofreconstructingparticularchainsofcausesandeffects,responsibleforthisorthatpatternoraspectofapattern.Limitedgeneralisationsmaybepos-sible,butprobablynomorethatthat.Naturalselectionwillalwaysbeusefulforsuchreconstructivepurposes,becausenaturalselec-tionislikelytooperateconstantly.But,onthisscepticalview,thisconstantactiondoesnotjustifytheclaimthatnaturalselection‘explains’macro-evolutionaryphenomena.Thisepistemicallybleakprospectexplainswhycontemporaryevolutionarybiologistsworkingonmacro-evolution,inparticu-larpalaeobiologistsandbiologistsworkingonphylogenies,arenowmoreinterestedinpatternsthaninprocesses.Inspiteofitstremendouslyincreasedtheoreticalandexperimentalbasis,evolu-tionarybiologyremainstodayalargelydescriptiveandhistoricalscience.viiconclusionHasDarwin’stheoryofevolutionwithstoodthetestoftime?Earlierwenotedthestrangesingularityofamodernscientificdisciplinethathasneverceasedtostructureitsdebatesbyreferencetotheworkofonefigure.ThereasonforthecontinuedvitalityofDarwin-ismisnotthatDarwin‘wasright’.Actually,incomparisonwithmodernstandards,hewaswrongonmanypoints,or,moreprecisely,partiallywrong.Aswehaveseeninthischapter,Darwin’sthinkingaboutevolutionhasconstantlybeenrectifiedratherthanrefuted.WhatexplainsthevitalityofDarwinismistheheuristicpoweroftheconceptsthatDarwinlefttohisfollowers:variation,compe-tition,inheritance,chancesofsurvivalandreproduction,descentandgenealogicalarrangement.Thesereplacedormarginalisedthemuchlessfecundconceptsoforganisation,type,metamorphosis,speciesandtaxonomicrank.Theformer,Darwiniancategories,itnowseems,pickoutrealproperties;whilethelatter,pre-Darwiniancategoriesareamatterofmereconvenience.59CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n298jeangayonSohowdidDarwindoit?Howcanweexplainhissuccessatdevel-opingconceptswithsuchafirmgriponthescienceandphenomenaofevolutionarybiology?Here,perhaps,ispartoftheanswer.RecallthatDarwinhadanexceptionallythoroughacquaintancewiththephilosophicaldebatesinhistimeoverthenatureandstructureofscientifictheories.MichaelRusehasevenspokenof‘Darwin’sdebt’tothephilosophers,especiallyJohnHerschel.Ruseisright.Darwinmaywellnothavereadmuchphilosophy;butthemodelofscientifictheorisingthathefoundinHerschelintheearly1830swascertainlyoftheutmostimportanceforhisowncreativityinthefieldofphilo-sophicalnaturalhistory.60Darwin’sframingideasarealmostalwaysinazoneintermediatebetween‘generalfacts’ofnatureandtheoret-ical‘hypotheses’justifiablethroughtheirconsequences.Hisspecialtalentwastounderstandthatthismethodologicalapproximationwascrucialtothesuccessofcausaltheoriesinnaturalhistory.De-scentwithmodification,whilemoreofa‘generalfact’thana‘hy-pothesis’,isneverthelessboth.Naturalselection,whilemoreofa‘hypothesis’thana‘generalfact’,isneverthelessboth.ThiscuriousfeatureofwhattheFrenchphilosopherofscienceGastonBachelardmighthavecalledDarwin’s‘spontaneousepistemology’openedtheroutetoanindefinitenumberofrectifications,onthesideofboththeoryandempiricaldata.notesIwouldliketothankJonHodgeandGregRadickfortheirusefulcommentsandsuggestionsonthecontentofthischapter.Iames-peciallyindebtedtoGregRadickforhislinguistichelpinthefinalrevision.1.Onthehistoryoftheterm‘Darwinism’,seeJ.R.Moore1991andRuse1992.2.OnthesocialandpoliticalconsequencesofDarwinism,seePaul,thisvolume.3.Ruse1996.4.ThisdoublestrategyofjustificationoftheprincipleofnaturalselectionismadeexplicitintheintroductiontoTheVariationofAnimalsandPlantsUnderDomestication(C.Darwin1868).Formoredetails,seeGayon1997.SeealsoHodge,WatersandHull,thisvolume.5.InhisPalingen´esiephilosophique´(1769),BonnetarguedthatGodhadprearrangedtheoccurrenceofnewspeciesinthegermsofthefirstCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nFromDarwintotodayinevolutionarybiology299organismshehadcreated.Forthisreason,Bonnetextendedtheuseoftheword‘evolution’(literally‘unfolding’)tothegenesisofspecies.6.Spencer[1864–7]1884.7.Cf.R.J.Richards1992onpossibleaffinitiesbetweenDarwin’stheoris-ingaboutevolutionandthetraditionofembryologicalprogressionism.8.C.Darwin1959,264–5.9.Mivart1871.10.DarwintoA.Gray,11May1863,inF.Burkhardtetal.1985–2001,Correspondencexi,403.11.C.Darwin[1859]1964,302.12.C.Darwin1959,507.13.C.Darwin1959,751.14.Bowler1983.15.OnAmericancreationism,seeNumbers1992.Onitslatestvariant,the‘intelligentdesign’movement,seeRuse,thisvolume.16.Kuhn1970.17.Bowler1983;Gayon1998.18.Haeckelcoinedthewordin1866,andprovidedmanyhypotheticalex-amples(Haeckel1866).Inthesameyear,thefirstphylogenetictreeforarealgroupoffossilorganisms,withclearreferencetospecificgeologicalepochs,wasproposedbyGaudryforfossilelephants(Gaudry1866).Onpost-Darwinianspeciesgenealogies,seeBowler1996.19.Forthesedebates,seeHull1987.Ontheconceptualproblemsinvolvedingeneratingandtestinggenealogicalhypotheses,seeSober,thisvol-ume.20.Zittel1895;Dep´eret´1907;Schindewolf1936;Vialleton1929.21.Vialleton1929.22.Simpson1944.23.EldredgeandGould1972.Onthehistoryofsaltationisttheorisinginevolutionarybiology,seeSchwartz1999.24.Extinctionmayalsobeexpectedtoplayanimportantroleinsaltationisttheoriesofevolution.25.Woeseetal.,1990.26.Woese1998,11044–5.27.Margulis1981.Onthehistoryofsymbiosisinevolutionarythinking,seeSapp1994.28.Iusetheword‘pattern’hereinthemodernsenseof‘aclassofhistoricalevents’,asopposedtoacausativeprocess.SeeEldredgeandCracraft1980.29.Seenote4.30.OnDarwin’sviewsoninheritance,seeEndersby,thisvolume.EventhosewhoacceptedtheexistenceofnaturalselectionsometimeshadCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n300jeangayondoubtsaboutitsabilitytocauseallofevolutioninthetimemadeavailablebythephysicists’estimatesoftheageoftheearth.Onthesede-bates,andespecially,thecontributionsofLordKelvin(WilliamThom-son),seeBurchfield1975.31.Jenkin[1867]1973.32.Forfurtherdiscussionofthiscomplexstory,seeProvine1971andGayon1998.33.Gayon1998.34.Onthefoundersofevolutionarygenetics,seethepaperscollectedinSarkar1992.35.Gayon1998.ForarecentaccountofthecontroversiessurroundingKet-tlewell’sclaims,seeHooper2002.36.Quotefrom,C.Darwin1868,chs.21and28.37.Kettlewell1955.OnKettlewell’sexperiments,seeRudge1999andHa-gen1999.Weldon’sworkoncrabsinthe1890sdidnotconstituteex-haustiveprooffornaturalselection.Ashehimselfrecognised,hewasnotabletoestablishtheheritabilityofthecharactersheconsidered(Gayon1998).38.Fisher1930.Fordiscussion,seeRadick,thisvolume.39.Lewontin1970.40.Dobzhansky1937.OnDobzhansky,seeAdams1994.41.J.Huxley1942,ch.1,sect.1.42.SeeWaters,thisvolume.43.OntheModernSynthesis,seeMayrandProvine1980andDepewandWeber1995,chs.10–12.44.OnthecentennialcelebrationsintheUnitedStates,seeTax1960andSmocovitis1999.45.OnthehistoryoftheDarwinianconceptofadaptation,seeRadick,thisvolume.Onsomeoftheconceptualproblemsinvolvedingeneratingandtestingadaptivehypotheses,seeSober,thisvolume.46.Lewontin1974.47.Kimura1968;KingandJukes1969.48.Forageneralreview,seeSoberandWilson1998.49.C.Darwin[1871]1981.SeeRichards,thisvolume.AlthoughitmightappearthatDarwinappealstogroupselectionatseveralpoints,suchasinhisexplanationoftheoriginsofneuterworkerants,Darwinintheendalmostalwaysappealstofamilyselection,aprocesscompatiblewithindividualselection.Fordiscussion,seeGayon1998,esp.70–3.50.ImportantexceptionsaretheOxfordzoologistsofthe1910sand1920s,whodidappealtogroupselectionintheirecologicalwork.SeeMorrell1997,ch.7.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nFromDarwintotodayinevolutionarybiology30151.V.C.Wynne-Edwards,trainedatOxford,wrotetheclassicdefenceofgroupselection.SeeWynne-Edwards1962.52.Forfurtherdiscussion,seeRosenberg,thisvolume.53.Kauffman1993.54.C.Darwin[1859]1964,80–1.55.Dobzhansky1937,12.56.Raup1991.57.C.Darwin[1859]1964,109–11.58.EldredgeandGould1972;Eldredge1989;Gould2002.59.Forinstance,Darwindeniedthatspeciesasacategorycouldbedefined,orthattaxonomicrankshadanindependentobjectiveexistence.WhatmatteredtoDarwinwastheevolutionarysignificanceofspeciesandhigher(orlower)taxa.Whetheragivengroupoforganismshadthisorthattaxonomicrankwasforhimapragmaticissue.OnDarwin’sconceptofspecies,seee.g.Stamos1996and1999.60.Ruse1975.SeealsoSloanandHull,thisvolume.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nelliottsober12MetaphysicalandepistemologicalissuesinmodernDarwiniantheoryiatwo-parttheoryLikeDarwin’sowntheoryofevolution,themodernDarwinianthe-oryofevolutionhastwomainelements:TheTreeofLife:Allorganismsnowaliveonearthtracebacktoacommonancestor.NaturalSelection:Naturalselectionhasbeenanimportantcauseofthesimilaritiesanddifferencesthatexistintheearth’sbiota.Thefirstofthesepropositionssaysthatanytwocontemporaryor-ganismshaveacommonancestor.Humanbeingsaregenealogicallyrelatedtoeachother,buteachhumanbeingalsohasacommonan-cestorwithchimps,dogs,clams,daffodils,bacteriaandyeast.1Thesecondproposition,asIhaveformulatedit,doesnotsaythatnaturalselectionistheonlycauseofevolution.Indeed,itshouldbeunder-stoodtoleaveopenthepossibilitythattherearetraitsforwhichnaturalselectionisentirelyirrelevant.Thisisthebigpicture,andevolutionarybiologyisdevotedtofillinginthedetails.AlthoughDarwinismiseasytodescribe,thissimpletheorygivesrisetoarichrangeofmetaphysicalandepistemologicalquestions.Itisthepurposeofthischaptertodiscusssomeofthem.InconformitywiththestructureofDarwiniantheory,Ihavechosenonemetaphys-icalandoneepistemologicalproblemfromeachofthetwobigideas.Ibeginwithaprobleminthemetaphysicsofnaturalselection–theroleofchance–followedbyaprobleminthemetaphysicsofthetreeoflife–thenatureofabiologicalspecies.Turningfrommetaphysicstoepistemology,thelatersectionsofthechapterexaminethetesting302CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nMetaphysicalandepistemologicalissues303ofhypothesesaboutgenealogicalrelatedness(thetreeoflife)andthetestingofadaptivehypotheses(naturalselection).iithelogicalcharacterofdarwiniantheoryBeforemovingontothesefourtopics,itisusefultocontemplatethelogicalcharacterofthetwopropositionsthatcomprisetheDarwiniantheory.Eachisahistoricalclaim,notalawofnature.Lawsofnatureareconventionallyunderstoodtobeempiricalgener-alisationsthatdonotrefertoanyplace,timeorindividual.Inaddi-tion,theycannotbetrueaccidentally;theyaresupposedtopossessakindofnecessity(nomological,notlogical).Incontrast,thetwopropositionsweareconsideringareexpressedinsingularstatementsabouttheorganismsthathappentoexistonearth.Inthedayswhenphilosophyofsciencewasdominatedbyphi-losophyofphysics,thisfeatureofDarwiniantheorywasamatterofconcern,ifnotembarrassment.WithNewtonianmechanics,rel-ativitytheoryandquantummechanicsastheirparadigmsofwhatascientifictheoryshouldbelike,thelogicalempiricistsoftenequatedsciencewiththesearchforlaw.SincetheDarwinianpropositionsarenotlaws,inwhatsensedotheyconstituteascientifictheoryatall?Now,inthesepost-positivisttimes,theimpulsetomakebiol-ogyfitthisphysicalidealislesscompelling.Itnowseemsnaturaltorecognisethatsciencesareoftwotypes–nomotheticandhis-torical.Nomotheticsciencesaimatthediscoveryoflaws;theyusehistoricalinformationaboutspecificobjectsasameanstothatend.Historicalsciencesaimtodiscoverfactsaboutthehistoriesofspe-cificobjects;theyuseinformationaboutlawsasameanstothatend.2Thisbroaderpictureofwhatcountsasscienceallowsustorecognisethatphysicscontainsdisciplinesofbothtypes,andsodoesevolutionarybiology.Thephysicaltheoriescitedabovebelongtonomotheticdisciplines.Butphysicistsarealsointerestedinthehistoriesofstarsandgalaxies;assuch,astronomyisanhistoricalscience.Indeed,thedivisionofnomotheticfromhistoricalsciencesneednotbestrict.Astronomersareinterestedinthehistoriesofspecificstarsandalsotrytodescribethelawsthatgovernthede-velopmentofstars.Inthesameway,biologistsseektounderstandtheevolutionofspecificgroupsoforganismsandalsotodescribetheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n304elliottsoberlawsthatgovernevolutionarychange.Astudentofthesocialinsectsmightalsodevelopgeneralmodelsofsexratioevolution.Althoughtheoreticiansinevolutionarybiologyseektoformulategeneralisationsthatarenottruesimplybyaccident(asisthecaseformanystatementsabout‘evolutionarytrends’–forexample,thatsizeincreasehasbeenmorecommonthansizereductionintheearth’sevolvinglineages),thereisafeatureofthesegeneralisationsthatfailstoconformtothelogicalempiricistconceptoflaw.Whereasthelog-icalempiricistsheldlawstobeempiricalratherthanmathematical,modelsinevolutionarybiologyare‘if...then’statementsthataremathematicaltruths.Consider,forexample,elementarymodelsinevolutionarygenetics.Theyassignfitnessestothevariousgenotypesinapopulation,andassertthatifthosefitnesseshavethesevalues,thenthepopulationwillevolvetocertainfuturestates.The‘if...then’statementthatsummarisessuchmodelsistrueapriori.Noobservationsareneededtoseethatitistrue;checkingthealgebrasuffices.Ofcourse,itisanempiricalmatterwhetherthisorthatnaturalpopulationsatisfiestheconditional’santecedent.However,thisempiricalquestionconcernsasingularstatement–thatthispopulationexhibitscertainproperties.3iiichanceTheconceptofchancefeaturesinevolutionarytheoryintwocon-texts.First,thevariationonwhichnaturalselectionoperatesissaidtoarise‘bychance’.Second,probabilitiesappeartwiceoverinthecharacterisationofaselectionprocess–theconceptoffitnessisde-finedprobabilisticallyandfinitenessofpopulationsizeintroducesastochasticelementintoevolutionarytrajectories.Beginningwiththefirstoftheseusages,wecandiscernoneofitsmeaningsinaremarkofDarwin’s:‘Ihavehithertosometimesspokenasifthevariations...hadbeenduetochance.This,ofcourse,isawhollyincorrectexpression,butitservestoacknowledgeplainlyourignoranceofthecauseofeachparticularvariation.’4HereDarwinechoestheFrenchastronomerPierre-SimonLaplace,whoclaimedthatademonwithcompleteknowledgeoftherelevantlawsandinitialconditions,andwhohadlimitlesscomputationalpowers,wouldneverneedtotalkaboutwhatwouldprobablyoccur.Rather,CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nMetaphysicalandepistemologicalissues305forsuchabeing,‘nothingwouldbeuncertain,andthefuture,andthepast,wouldbepresenttoitseyes’.5AsecondmeaningthatmodernbiologistsattachtotheideathatvariationarisesbychancecametotheforeonlyafterDarwin’stime.Thisisthedoctrine,duetotheGermanbiologistAugustWeismann,thatbeneficialvariationsdonotarisebecausetheywouldbebeneficial.6ThisdoctrineamountstoarejectionoftheLamarckianideathatthereisinheritanceofacquiredcharacteristics.Appliedtothedistinctionbetweengenotypeandphenotype,Lamarckismre-quiresthataphenotypeacquiredbyparentsshouldchangethegenesthatparentstransmittotheiroffspring.Whereastheblacksmithgetsbigmusclesbecauseandonlybecauseheworksattheforge,hissondevelopsbigmuscleswhetherheexercisesthemornot–anacquiredcharacteristransformedintoonethatis‘innate’.Whenmodernbiologistssaythatmutationsoccur‘bychance’,onethingtheymeanisthatthisLamarckiancausalpathwaydoesnotexist.Inowturntothequestionofwhetherthereisa‘chanceelement’intheprocessofnaturalselectionitself.Modernbiologistsdefinenat-uralselectionintermsoftheconceptoffitness–aselectionprocessoccurspreciselywhenthereisvariationinfitness.Anorganism’sfitnessisits‘ability’tosurviveandreproduce.Thisabilityisrep-resentedprobabilistically,intermsofafertilisedegg’sprobabilityofreachingadulthoodandtheadultorganism’sexpectednumberofoffspring.Wemaybeginwiththepointthatfitnessisatheoreticallyinter-estingpropertybecauseitisapropertyoftraits.Itistraitsthatevolvethroughmulti-generationalselectionprocesses,whereasindividualorganismsareheretodayandgonetomorrow.Biologistscareaboutthefitnessofdorsalfins,notaboutthefitnessofindividualtunas.Thatsaid,evolutionarytheorydoesnotreifytraits;thefitnessofatraitdoesnotfloatfreeofthefitnessesoftheindividualsthathavethetrait.Thetwoarelinkedbyasimpleformula–thefitnessofatraitisjusttheaveragefitnessoftheindividualorganismsthatpossessthetrait.7Letusapplythisframeworktoaconcreteexample.Supposethatrunningspeedisevolvinginapopulationofzebras.Somezebrasrunfastwhileothersrunslowly.Ifthefrequenciesofthesetraitsarechangingbecausethereisnaturalselection,thetwotraitsrunningCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n306elliottsoberfastandrunningslowlymustdifferinfitness.Thismeansthatfastzebras,onaverage,haveadifferentfitnessvaluefromslowones.Letussupposethatthisisbecausefastzebras,onaverage,arebetterabletoavoidbeingkilledbypredators.Fastzebrasdifferamongthemselvesincountlessways,soitisamistaketothinkthatthereisasinglefitnessvaluethattheyhaveincommon.Perhapsfastzebrashaveathousanddifferentprobabilitiesofsurvivingtoadulthood.Ormaybethelifetimeofeachzebraisadeterministicprocesswhereintheorganismisfatedtodiebeforereachingadulthood,orfatednottodoso.Thischoicedoesnotmatter,becausewhetherweaverageathousanddifferentprobabilities,orav-erageathousanddifferent1’sand0’s,theupshotisthesame–werep-resentthefitnessofthetraitrunningfastasbeingbetween0and1.Oncefitnessvaluesareassignedtothetwotraits,thefundamen-talquestionconcerningwhatnaturalselectioncanbeexpectedtoproducedependsonasimplecomparativequestion–whichtraitisfitter?Theabsolutevaluesofthefitnessesdonotmatter.Ifrunningfastisfitterthanrunningslowly,thenitismoreprobablethannotthatrunningfastwillincreaseinfrequency(assumingthatthetraitsareheritable).Buthowprobableisthisoutcome?Thisiswherethesizeofthepopulationbecomesrelevant.Thelargerthepopulation,themorecertainitisthatthefittertraitwillincreaseinfrequency.Considerananalogy–twocoinsthatdifferintheirbiases.Thefirsthasaprobabilityoflandingheadswhentossedof0.8,whilethesecondhasaprobabilityoflandingheadsof0.6.IfItosseachcoinanumberoftimes,Iexpectthefirsttolandheadsmoreoftenthanthesecond.However,thestrengthofthisexpectationdependsonhowmanytimesthecoinsaretossed.Ifeachistossedtwice,thereisaconsiderableprobabilitythatthefirstcoinwillnotyieldthelargernumberofheads.ButifItossthecoinsathousandtimes,thisprobabilityshrinks.TheLawofLargeNumberssaysthatassamplesizeincreases,theprobabilityincreasesthatthefrequencyofheadsproducedbyacoinwillbeclosetoitsprobabilityoflandingheads.Inthelimit,theprobabilityapproachesunity(thatis,certainty)thatthefirstcoinwilllandheads80%±ofthetimeandthesecondwilllandheadswithafrequencyof60%±,nomatterhowsmallis.Incointossing,smallsamplesizegives‘chance’anenhancedop-portunitytoshowitself.Inevolution,itissmallpopulationsizethatCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nMetaphysicalandepistemologicalissues307hasthiseffect.ThisistheideathatMotooKimuraexploitedinhis‘neutraltheoryofmolecularevolution’.8Iftraitsdifferonlyalittleinfitness,andifpopulationsizeissmallenough,thentraitswillevolvebyrandomwalk.ModernDarwinianseitherrejecttheneu-traltheoryorrestricttheirDarwinismtochangesathigherlevelsoforganisation;randomwalkisnotevolutionbynaturalselection.Ihopethisbriefdiscussiongivesthereaderafeelingforthefactthatmodernevolutionarytheoryissaturatedwithprobabilitycon-cepts.Probabilitiesareusedtodescribemutations,theyareusedtocharacterisethefitnessvaluesoftraits,andtheyareusedinmodelsthatallowonetocalculatetheoutcomesofspecifiedini-tialconditions.Someofthesemodelsaresaidtobe‘deterministic’;theyapplyonlytopopulationsthatareinfinitelylarge.Suchmodelsmaybesuitableidealisationswhenthefinitepopulationsunderstudyarebigenough,butthesedeterministicmodelsareaspecialcase.Thebodyoftheory,takenasawhole,isprobabilistictoitscore.Whatdotheseprobabilityconceptsmean?Tobeginwith,theydonotentailthatdeterminismisfalse.Thisisnotaproblemonwhichbiologyhasanypurchase.Whenabiologicalmodelassignsaprobabilitytoagivenevent,theremaybefactorsinfluencingtheprocessleadinguptothateventthatarenotacknowledgedinthebiologicalmodel.Thesehiddenvariablesmaybebiologicalinchar-acter(andsoamorecomplexbiologicalmodelcanbeconstructedtocapturethem),ortheymayinvolveeventsthatcannotbedescribedinbiologicallanguage.Eitherway,thetheoryissaidtobecausallyincomplete.Itisatthispointthatphysicsmayhavetotakeover–thebuckhasbeenpassed.Itisinterestingthatthebucknevergetspassedintheoppositedirection–whenphysiciststhinkthataphys-icalmodelisincomplete,theydonotturntobiologistsforhelp.Thisasymmetryarisesbecausethereisnoreasontothinkthatbiologyiscausallycomplete,buttheideathatphysicsiscausallycompleteistakenveryseriouslyindeed.9Inordertoinvestigatehowtheprobabilityconceptsusedinevolu-tionarybiologyshouldbeinterpreted,letusassumethatdetermin-ismistrue.TheLaplaceaninterpretation(withwhichthequotationfromDarwinagrees)isthatprobabilityconceptsmustthereforebeplaceholdersforignorance;eitherdeterminismisfalseorprobabili-tiesmustdescribesubjectivedegreesofbelief.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n308elliottsoberThereisathirdpossibility.Consider,first,thefactthatthemath-ematicalformalismoftheprobabilityaxiomscanbeinterpretedintermsofactualfrequencies.Underthisinterpretation,‘theprobabil-ityis1/2thatthenexttossofthiscoinwilllandheads’meansthatthecoin’shistoryoftosses(past,presentandfuture)yields50percentheads.Idonotclaimthatthisinterpretationdoesjusticetomuchofwhatwewanttosayinprobabilitylanguage–afterall,afaircoincanbetossedanoddnumberoftimes–butitdoesbringoutthepos-sibilitythatprobabilitystatementscandescribeobjectivefeaturesoftheworldevenifdeterminismistrue.Thequestionofwhetherprobabilitystatementscanbeobjectivelytrueinadeterministicworldneedstobeseparatedfromtheprag-maticquestionofwhichstatementsweshoulduseinmakingapre-diction.Ifwetossacoinanddeterminismistrue,fullinformationwillallowustopredictwithcertaintywhetherthecoinwilllandheads.Ifwehadthisfullinformation,wewouldnotusethefactthatthecoinlandedheadshalfthetimeinpasttossestoinferthattheprobabilityofheadsonthenexttossis1/.However,thisisaprag-2maticpoint,notasemanticone.Thefactthatwewouldnotusetheprobabilitystatementtomakeourpredictiondoesnotmeanthatitisnotobjectivelytrue.Scientistsintroduceprobabilitymodelstodescriberepeatablepro-cessesthatexhibitdifferentoutcomeswithdifferentfrequencies.Theprobabilityofanoutcomeisnotthesameastheobservedfre-quency,butratherisatheoreticalquantityintroducedtoexplainandpredictthatobservedfrequency.Likealltheories,probabilis-tictheoriesareinferentiallyconnectedtoobservations.Valuesforprobabilitiesareestimatedfromobservedfrequencies,andpostu-latedprobabilitiesmakepredictionsaboutwhichobservationswill(probably)occur.Whenweaskwhethernonprobabilistictheoreti-calpostulatesareobjectivelytrue,allwecandoispointtotheconfirmationthatthosetheorieshavereceived.Thisiswhyweareentitledtothinkthatelectronsobjectivelyexist–theyarenotfigmentsofourimagination.Preciselythesamestandardshouldbeappliedtothequestionofwhethervariousprobabilityconceptsareobjective.Weknowthaturaniumhasagivenhalf-life;thisisanobjectivefeatureofthatsubstance.Thesameholdstrueofthemutationprobabilitiesandfitnessvaluesdiscussedinevolutionarybiology.10CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nMetaphysicalandepistemologicalissues309Thispointabouttheinterpretationofprobabilityconceptsinadeterministicworldhasimplicationsforhowprobabilitiesshouldbeunderstoodifdeterminismisfalse.Supposethatacompletephys-icaltheoryweretoassignaprobabilityofxtoagivenevent(where0b/c,whereristhecoefficientofrelatedness(1/2inthecaseofoff-springandsiblings,1inthecaseofidenticaltwins,1/4inthecaseofcousinsandnephews),bisthepay-offtomutualcooperation,andcisthecostofcooperationinthefaceofselfishness.Ifthegroup’sfit-nessisafunctionofindividualfitnesses,thengroupsofkin-relatedagentsplayingthecooperative(or‘sucker’s’)strategyinaone-shotprisoner’sdilemmawillbefitterthangroupscomposedofpairsofmutualfree-ridersplayingthedefectorstrategy,andalsofitterthanmixedgroupsofpairsoffree-ridersandsuckers.Theresultgener-alisestolargergroupsthanpairs.Indeed,onceplayerscanrecognisetheirdegreesofrelatedness,orforthatmatterwhatstrategiestheyaregeneticallyprogrammedtoplayinprisoner’sdilemmas,theycanCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n360alexrosenbergpreferentiallyaggregateintosuchfittergroups.Furthermore,whenplayersseekoutoneanotheronthebasisofwhatstrategytheyplay,thelong-termresultwillbea‘correlatedequilibrium’ofgroupsofcooperatorsonly,thenon-cooperatinggroupshavingbeendriventoextinction.Butrecalltheproblemofinvasion.Oncestarted,thesegroupsofcooperatorswillneverthelessbevulnerabletoinvasionormuta-tionthatsubvertsfromwithin,producingfree-ridersthattakeallotherplayersinthegroupforsuckersandincreaseinproportionfromgenerationtogeneration,untileventuallyselfishnessbecomesfixedineveryerstwhilealtruisticgroup.SoberandWilsonsuggestthatcooperatinggroupspreservethemselvesbymeansofsecondaryenforcementbehaviours.Normsofcooperationarepolicedbynormsofenforcement,andenforcement–shaming,reporting,confiscat-ing–isfarlesscostlytotheenforcingindividualsthanthebreak-downofthenormsofcooperationwouldbe.SoberandWilsonarguethatunrelatedhumancooperativegroupsattainstableequilibria(onesthatcannotbeinvaded)throughtheenforcementofsocialnormsthatlowerthecostsofcooperatingandraisethecostsofdefecting.viisjusticeselectedfor?Evolutionarygametheoryseemscapableofrenderinghumancoop-erationcompatiblewithnaturalselection,andthushelpstoexplaintheemergenceofthenormsandemotionsthatunderwriteGibbard’sDarwinianmetaethicalprogramme.Evolutionarygametheorymaybeabletogostillfurtherandidentifythecontentofsomeofthesenorms.BrianSkyrmshasshownhowaDarwinianprocesscanresultinthefixationamonghumansofthenormofjustice-as-fair-division.Thekeytothisdemonstrationis,again,theevolutionofacorrelatedequilibriumamonglikestrategiesthroughamechanismofrandomvariationandnaturalselection.Considertheproblemof‘dividethecake’.Twoplayersbidinde-pendentlyonthesizeofthepieceofthecaketheywant.Ifthebidsadduptomorethanthewholecake,neithergetsanycake.Other-wise,theygetwhattheybid.Mostpeople,ofcourse,bid1/2.Thisoutcomeisanequilibriumsuchthatneithercandobetter,nomatterCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinisminmoralphilosophyandsocialtheory361whatstrategytheotheremploys.Thereareindefinitelymanyothersuchso-called‘Nash’equilibria(aftertheeconomistJohnNash):forexample,Ibid90percent,youbid10percent.Butnoneofthemisevolutionarilystable.Apopulationwhosemembersdemandmorethan1/2orlessthan1/2ofthecakewillbeinvadedandswampedbypairswhodemand1/2.Considerabiddinggameinwhichrandomproportionsofthreestrategies–bid1/3,bid2/3,andbid1/2–arerep-resentedattheoutset.Skyrmshasshownthat,inacomputersim-ulationinwhichstrategiesoflowestfitnessareregularlyremoved,thefair-divisionstrategy(bid1/2)isthesoleremainingstrategyafter10,000roundsin62percentofthetrials.Moreover,whenstrategiescorrelatesothatthefair-divisionstrategyplaysagainstitselfmorefrequently,orwithincreasingfrequencyasthegameproceeds,ital-mostalwaysswampsanyotherstrategy.Skyrmsconcludesthatin‘afinitepopulation,inafinitetime,wherethereissomerandomelementinevolution,somereasonableamountofdivisibilityofthegoodandsomecorrelation,wecansaythatitislikelythatsomethingclosetoshareandsharealikeshouldevolveindividing-the-cakesit-uations.Thisis,perhaps,abeginningofanexplanationoftheoriginofourconceptofjustice.’20Skyrmshasderivedanumberofotherintriguingresults.Whendivide-the-cakeisplayedseriallyinsteadofsimultaneously,sothatoneplayercandemandmorethan1/2andthusforcetheotherplayertochoosebetweenlessthanafairshareandnothingatall,correlationamongstrategiesenablesselectiontogiverisetofair-sharescoopera-tion.Strategycorrelationinthedefenceofterritoriescanleadtotheemergenceofprivatepropertyasacooperative,adaptivesolution.Fi-nally,asweshallsee,strategycorrelationcangiverisetomeaning.OneofSkyrms’largeraimsistoshowthatthesehappyoutcomesareattainableonlywhenthechoiceofindividualstrategiesisgovernedbynaturalselection.Noneareattainablewhenthechoiceofindi-vidualstrategiesisgovernedbyconsiderationsofmaximalpay-off,ofeconomicrationalchoice.Buthowcanwebeconfidentthatthedegreeofstrategycorrela-tionrequiredfortheevolutionofcooperationaroseinourownevo-lutionarypast?Hereistheproblem,illustratedbyoneofSkyrms’results.Ingroupsofrelatedindividuals,forexampletroopsofvervetmonkeys,signalsthatindicatethepresenceofvariousthreats–forCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n362alexrosenbergvervets,snakes,leopardsandeagles–candevelopfromcorrelatedconventionsastowhatnoisesconsistentlytomakeinthepresenceofdifferentstimuli.Naturalselectionwillprefersystemsinwhichsendersandreceiverstreatnoisesasbearingthesame‘news’.Itwillalsoselectforaltruisticemploymentofsignalstowarnkin,evenatthesignaller’sexpense.NotethatthisisaresultwhichbothGibbardandSober–Wilsonrequire,sinceitislanguagethatmakesnormsofcooperationandenforcementpossible.Indeed,languageissoimpor-tanttotheevolutionofcooperationthatonemightevenarguethatlanguageemergedbecauseofitsimpactoncooperation.Skyrms’modelfortheevolutionoflanguagepresupposesahighdegreeofstrategycorrelation.Inthecaseofvervets,theirpopula-tionstructuremakesthatpresuppositionreasonable.Anindividualvervetismorelikelythannottoencountervervetsplayingthesamegeneticallyfixedstrategy.Hominidevolution,however,mostprob-ablyproceededintheabsenceofthissortofpopulationstructure.Itseemslikelythatourancestorsweresolitaryindividuals,dispersedfromtheirkinandroamingthesavannasalone.21Thecooperationtheyneededtoestablishinordertosurvivecouldnothavearisenonthebackofkin-basedcorrelation.Nordoesthereseemtobeanalternativetopopulationstructureasasourceofahighdegreeofcorrelation.Hencethereisnobasisinevolutionarygametheorytobeconfidentthatcooperation,oritssemanticprerequisites,wouldhavearisenamongancestralhumans.Thereismoreworktodoindevelopingplausiblemodelsoftheevolutionofcooperationamonghumansandourancestors.ButwhathasbeendoneinevolutionarygametheorycertainlyhasbeguntoprovidetheempiricalfoundationsthataDarwinianmetaethicsrequiresforitsclaimsaboutmeaningandthefoundationsofmoraljudgement.Insomeattenuatedsense,theresultmayevensatisfythehopesforaDarwinianmorality.Withoutvindicatingtheinternalismofmoraljudgementsasreflectingobjectivedemandsonourconduct,DarwinianmetaethicsapproachesthegoalsthatonetraditioninethicssinceHobbeshassetforitself:thetaskofshowingthatitisrationaltobemoral.Cooperationmakesuseachbetteroffthanwewouldbeinastateofnature.Butthisoutcomeisnotattainableasabargainamongrationalagents;rather,itistheresultofnaturalselectionoperatingoverrandomvariation.Thisisalmost,butnotquite,Darwinianmorality.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinisminmoralphilosophyandsocialtheory363viibroaderimplicationsofdarwinismforsocialtheoryWellbeforethedevelopmentssurveyedabove,Darwinismwasguid-ingaresearchprogrammeintheempiricalsocialsciences–socio-biology.Latterly,somesociobiologistshavesubstitutedthename‘evolutionarypsychology’fortheirscience,inparttoavoidthecon-troversiesthatvexedsociobiology,inparttoreflectamuchstrictercommitmentthaninthepasttoselectionongenesorindividuals(ratherthangroups)astheforceshapinghumanbehaviourandsocialinstitutions.Somecriticschargethatsociobiology,initsneweraswellasitsolderversions,adoptsa‘Panglossian’,adaptationistmethodologythateffectivelyandperniciouslylegitimatesthehu-mansocialstatusquoasinevitableandunchangeable.22Accordingtothesecritics,iflamentablesocialinstitutions–suchasthedivisionoflabour,bothsexualandindustrial;economicandracialinequality;vastpowerasymmetries;andcoerciveviolence–areclaimedtobetheresultsoflong-termselectionprocesses,theseinstitutionswillwronglybedeemednomoresubjecttoameliorationorchangethan,say,eyecolour.Suchconclusions,especiallyifbasedmerelyonstoriesaboutvariationandselectionratherthanhard-wonempir-icaldata,shouldberegardedwithsuspicionandevaluatedwiththegreatestscepticism.23SomeworkcarriedonunderthebannerofDarwiniansociobiol-ogymaycertainlywarrantsuchhostility.24Butnotallofitcanbesocriticised.Reviewingthisworkwouldtakeustoofarafield;butatleastsomeofthecriticismofthesociobiologicalresearchpro-grammecanbedeflectedbythedevelopmentsinmoralandpoliticalphilosophyreviewedhere.Forif,aswehaveseen,individualfitnessmaximisationcanresultinthemoralitymostofusshare,andinin-stitutionsofcooperationandjustice,thenDarwiniansocialthinkingisnotguiltysimplyofunderwritinganunjust,non-egalitarian,sexist,raciststatusquo.Whatevertheexplanationofthesocialpresent,naturalselectionwillfeatureatmostasoneamongalargearrayofcausalfactors.Moreover,thereareenvironments,perhapsevenattainableones,inwhichnaturalselectionwillnotinevitablyleadtonefarioussocialoutcomes.Darwinianmetaethicsandevolutionarygametheoryhavesuc-ceeded,perhapsbeyondthenaturalist’shopes,inprovidinganCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n364alexrosenbergaccountofhowcooperativeinstitutionscanemergedespitetheab-senceofdesigningintentionsamongtheirparticipants.Thissuccesshasinturnstronglyencouragedothernon-normativeexplanatoryprogrammesinthesocialsciences.Whatunitestheseprogrammesisasearchforstableequilibriathatoptimisesomefunctionwithoutanyparticipantintendingoractingtoattainsuchanoutcome.Dar-winismmaythusinpartvindicatethe‘invisible’or‘hidden’handstrategyofAdamSmithandhismarket-orientedfollowersineco-nomics.Smith’slaissez-faireeconomictheoryimpliesthatself-seekinginfreemarketswilllead,asifbyaninvisiblehand,tooutcomesad-vantageousforall.Itisnowwellknown,ofcourse,thatthisisnotthecase.Rational-choicebehaviouramongeconomicagentsleadstonon-optimumoutcomesinmanydifferentcircumstances:intheprovisionofpublicgoods,orwhenlargecompaniescanmakethingsmorecheaplythansmallones(whateconomistscall‘positivereturnstoscale’),orwhentherearesmallnumbersoftraders,orasymmetriesofinformation,orhightransactioncosts,oradifferenceintheinter-estsofprincipalsandagents.These‘marketfailures’haveledcriticsofthemarkettodenyboththatmarketeconomicarrangementsre-flecttheoperationofanoptimisinginvisiblehandandthatsocialinstitutionsaretheresultofwhatF.A.Hayekcalled‘spontaneousorder’.25Whatevolutionaryapproacheshaveshownisthat,whenbe-haviouristheresultofnaturalselectionforoutcomesthatenhancefitness,insteadoftherationalchoiceofoutcomesthatenhanceindividualwelfare,marketfailurescanbeavoidedandoptimalout-comesmayafterallbeattainable.Theseapproacheshaveshowninadditionthattheseoutcomesresultfromtheaggregationofin-dividualbehaviours,nottheselectionofsomepropertiesofthegroup(beyondthosecorrelatedpairsthatSoberandWilson’sgroupselectioncountenances).Ofcourse,ifthemaximisationofwel-fareisamongthewaysinwhichfitnessisoftenmaximised,thennaturalselectionforindividualfitnessmaximisationwillbringindividualwelfaremaximisationalongwithit,thussubstantiatingSmith’slaissez-faireconclusionsifnothisreasoning.Inshort,suc-cessfulDarwinianexplanationsinthesocialscienceswillsubstanti-atebothmethodologicalindividualismandinvisibleorhidden-handperspectives.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinisminmoralphilosophyandsocialtheory365Thereisanother,potentiallymorepromisingadaptationofDar-winisminthesocialsciences.Ifgenesandpackagesofgenescanreplicateandbeselectedforinvirtueoftheireffectsonorganisms,whycannotbeliefs,desiresandothercognitivestatesbeselectedforasaconsequenceoftheireffectsoncognitiveagents?RichardDawkinshascalledthesecognitivestates‘memes’(mental‘genes’).Individualmemesvaryintheireffectsonhumanbehaviour.26Asaresult,theyaredifferentiallycopied(reproduced)intothecognitivesystemsofotheragents.Hereagain,theattractionsofmemeticselec-tionareitsfreedomfromassumptionsabouttheconsciousrationalchoicesofindividualstoadoptparticularideas,values,fashionsandsoon,aswellastheavailabilityofaninvisible-handmechanismthatexplainshowtheyspread,becomefixedinapopulation,andoftenbecomelesswidespreadasenvironmentalchange(orevenfrequency-dependentselection)makesthemlessadaptative.Nevertheless,itwouldbewrongtosupposethatDarwinismvin-dicatesthenotion,sometimesattributedtoSmithandhisfollow-ers,thathumansocialandeconomicinteractionsareinevitablyandbeneficiallycompetitive.Aswehavealreadyseen,undercer-tainconditions,cooperationisamoreadaptiveDarwinianstrategythancompetition.ThatthisisapossibilityissomethingonemighthaveinferredfromDarwinianbiologydirectly.Themistakenin-ferencefromDarwinismdirectlytoaviewofnatureorsocietyas‘redintoothandclaw’isdueinparttotheneglectoftheroleoftheenvironment,which,perhapsmoreoftenthannot,doesselectforcompetitiveratherthancooperativebehaviour.However,Dar-winiansocialthinkerscannotdenythechargethat,onDarwinianprinciples,cooperationisintheendastrategyonlylocallyadaptive,andadaptiveforfundamentally‘selfishgenes’,whoseownfitness-maximisingstrategiesarewhatorganismalcooperationultimatelyfosters.viiiconclusionDarwinianmoralityhasbeenarecurrentgoalamongnaturalists.Ifpresentthinkingamongphilosophersholds,however,itwillremainanunattainablegoal.Darwinianmetaethics,bycontrast,isflourish-ing,carriedforwardonarisingtideofresearchintohumanaffairsfromtheperspectivesofgametheory,biologicalanthropologyandCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n366alexrosenbergevolutionarypsychology.Buildingoninsightsfromthesedisciplines,severalphilosophershaverecentlyadvancedourunderstandingofthenatureandsignificanceofmorality.Theyhaveshownhowmoral-itymaybeexpectedtohaveemergedamongfitness-maximisingani-mals,andhownaturemayhaveselectedbothforcooperativenormsandfortheemotionsthatexpressourcommitmenttothosenorms.Thespecificityanddetailthattheseaccountshavealreadyacquiredareimpressive.Whateverthelong-termlimitsofaDarwinianunder-standingofhumanaffairs,theshorttermpromisesfurtherprogressinattemptstobringDarwinianthinkingtobearonmoralphilosophyandsocialtheory.notes1.G.E.Moore[1903]1988,ch.1.2.ForfurtherdiscussionseeRosenberg1990.3.Railton1986,203.4.Railton1986,sections3and4,andespeciallyfootnote21.5.Railton1986,180.6.Railton1986,192.7.Railton1986,200.8.Railton1986,204.9.Ayer1936andStevenson1944.10.Gibbard1990.11.Gibbard1990,26.12.L.Wright1976.13.MaryanskiandTurner1992.14.Barkow,CosmidesandTooby1992.15.Griffiths1997.16.E.O.Wilson1975.Ontheevolutionofaltruismandtraditionaltheisticviewsofhumanmorality,seeRuse,thisvolume.17.MaynardSmith1974.18.Itisimportanttobearinmindthattit-for-tatisanoptimalstrategyformaximisingtheindividual’spay-off(evolutionaryorotherwise)onlyundercertainconditions.SeeAxelrod1984.19.SoberandWilson1998.20.Skyrms1996,21.21.MaryanskiandTurner1992.22.Onadaptationism,seeSober,thisvolume.23.AsustainedargumentforthisconclusionaboutDarwinism’sbalefulCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nDarwinisminmoralphilosophyandsocialtheory367influenceinthesocialsciencesisofferedinLewontin,RoseandKamin1984,esp.ch.9.24.SeePhilipKitcher1985a.25.Hayek1982.Forfurtherdiscussionof‘invisiblehand’arguments,seeRosenberg1995,ch.6andHull2001,ch.6.26.Dawkins1976,ch.11.Forfurtherdiscussionofmemes,seeDennettandKitcher,thisvolume.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nmichaelruse15BeliefinGodinaDarwinianageisignsofthetimesDarwinismhaslongbeeninthethickofscience–religiondebates,andnevermoresothantoday.1AmongthelatestofaseriesofAmericanstatestolegislateinamannerunfriendlytoDarwinismisOklahoma,insistingthatsciencetextbookscarryanexplicitstate-mentthat‘humanlifewascreatedbyoneGodoftheUniverse’.2Notallreligiousbelieversfeelsothreatenedbyevolutionaryideas,ofcourse.PopeJohnPaulII–hardlyamantotakedoctrinelightly–hassentoutaletterendorsingnotjustevolutionperse,butmoderntheoriesoforganicchange.3Inthesamespirit,KeithWard,RegiusProfessorofDivinityatOxford,speaksofnaturalselectionasa‘simpleandextremelyfruitfultheory’,andgoesontosaythatthereis‘everyreasontothinkthatascientificevolutionaryaccountandareligiousbeliefinaguidingcreativeforcearenotjustcompatible,butmutuallyreinforcing’.4Nevertheless,evenliberalChristiansoftenfeeltheneedtosupplementthetheoryofevolutionthroughnaturalselectionwithotherspecialmechanisms.Fortheirpart,manyofthoseonthesciencesideofthesede-batesthinkthatDarwinismsoundsthedeathknellforChristianityandothertheisticsystems.WritingwiththepassionofSavonarola,thewell-knownDarwinianRichardDawkins(authorofTheSelfishGene)regretsthata‘cowardlyflabbinessoftheintellectafflictsoth-erwiserationalpeopleconfrontedwithlong-establishedreligions’.AsaDarwinian,hewantsnocompromiseormutualembrace.‘Givenachoicebetweenhonesttogoodnessfundamentalismontheonehand,andtheobscurantist,disingenuousdoublethinkoftheRomanCatholicChurchontheother,IknowwhichIprefer.’5368CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nBeliefinGodinaDarwinianage369Inthischapter,IconsiderthepresentrelationshipandinteractionbetweenDarwinismandreligion.Confiningmydiscussiontothecutting-edgeissues,IavoidthevisiblebutsterilediscussionbetweenevolutionistsofallkindsandtheAmericanevangelicalProtestantswhowouldhaveusreadtheBibleabsolutelyliterally.AtleastsincethetimeofAugustine,amerefourcenturiesafterChrist,ithasbeenacceptedthatonemaylegitimatelyinterpretScripturemetaphori-callyorallegoricallyifneedbe.6HereIassume,inaddition,thatthetheoryofevolutionbynaturalselectionissufficientlywellestab-lishedthatnomoredebateisneededonthismatter.ThroughoutIamconcernedespeciallywithChristianity,foritisfromthisone,particularreligionthatDarwinismgrewandreacted.Butthemainpointsapplytotheothergreattheisticfaiths,JudaismandIslam,aswell.AcentralissueinthesefaithsistherelationshipbetweenGodandHisfavouredcreation,humans;andthisissuestructuresthediscus-sionthatfollows.FirstIexaminetheconsequencesofDarwinismforargumentsforandagainsttheexistenceofGod.Ilookatthreear-gumentsinparticular:theargumentfromdesign(thatGodbroughtdesignedorganismsintobeingdirectly);theargumentfromprogress(thatGodguidedtheevolutionaryprocessfromsimplebeginningstoensurethathumanseventuallyemerged);andtheargumentfromevil(thatsowastefulandcruelaprocesscannotbeGod’shandi-work,thereforeGoddoesnotexist).Movingtotheothersideoftherelationship,IexploretheimpactofDarwinismupontraditionalthe-isticviewsoftheuniquestatusofhumans:asbearersofimmortalsouls;asbeingscapableofmoralchoice;andaswitnessestoGod’smystery.iidesignTheargumentfromdesign,alsoknownastheteleologicalargument,startsfromthebeliefthattheworld–theorganicworldparticularly–isnotjustthrowntogetherrandomly,butworksorfunctionsinaharmoniouswaytowardscertainends.Takingafamousexample,theeyeseemsasifitisdesignedforthepurposeofenablingsight.Justasotherobjectsdesignedtoenablesight(suchasthetelescope)havedesigners,so,byanalogy,theeyemusthaveadesigner,adequatetothetask.Theargumentconcludesthatonlytheall-powerfulandCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n370michaelruseall-lovingbeingthatChristianscall‘God’couldhavedesignedtheeye.ThereforeGodexists.FollowingDarwinhimself,thedefiningmarkofDarwinismtodayisthecommitmenttoexplainapparentdesignastheproductofnatu-rallawoperatingblindly.7IfyouareaDarwinian,thenaboveallyoubelievethattheabundantdesign-likefeaturesoftheworldareduetonaturalselection.8Forsomescientists,thiscommitmentistheulti-mateissue.Dawkinsdeclaims(withsomerelief)thatDarwinismatlastmakesitpossibletobe‘anintellectuallyfulfilledatheist’.9Hearguesthat,althoughDavidHumeintheeighteenthcenturymadetheargumentlogicallyimplausible,intheabsenceofanalternativeexplanationofapparentdesign,Hume’scontemporariesreallyhadnooptionbuttocontinuetoaccepttheargument.AfterDarwin,how-ever,andthetheoryofnaturalselection,theargumentiscompletelypushedaside,andthewayisopentofulfillingnon-belief.Otherscientistsarelessconfident.Anumberofphysiciststo-dayaredrawntosomeversionoftheso-called‘anthropicprinciple’,thebeliefthat,hadthelawsofnaturenotbeenexactlyastheyare,thenlifecouldneverhaveevolved,andthat,sincetheexactformofnature’slawscouldhavebeenanyoneofaninfiniterange,theonlyplausibleconclusionisthattherewasdesigninsomesense.10Ofcourse,ascriticspointout,theproblemwiththisargumentistheassumptionthatthereisaninfiniterange,andthattheactualuniversecontingentlyfitsonlyonepointonthisrange.Norisitobviousthattheconclusionofdesignfollowsevenifthelawsofnaturecouldonlyhavebeenwhattheyare.IstheredesignbehindthefactthatPythagoras’theoremholdsonlyofright-angledtrian-gles?Alternatively,considerthepossibilitythattheinfiniterangeisfullysatisfied,andtherearemultipleuniverses.Thatouruni-verseiswhatitis,perhapsuniquelywithlivingbeings,isthennomoreevidenceofdesignthanthefactthatoneparticularpersonwinsthelotteryratherthananother,orthatthewinnerisricherthanthelosers.11Thereareotherstrategiesforrefloatingtheargumentfromdesign.Onevocalgroupofbiologistsareenthusiastsforso-called‘intelligentdesign’.Theyarguethattheorganicworldisjusttootightlyfunc-tioningtobeaproductofblindlaws,naturalselectioninparticular.ThebiochemistMichaelBeheclaimsthat,atthemicro-level,wefindthatorganismsexhibit‘irreduciblecomplexity’:theyarejustCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nBeliefinGodinaDarwinianage371toosmoothlyintegratedandwellfunctioningtobetheproductofnatureunaided.12Insupportofhiscase,Beheinstancesanumberofprocesseswhichhebelievesareirreduciblycomplex,amongthemthemammalianblood-clottingsystem,whichworksinasequentialway(asa‘cascade’)witheverystageabsolutelyessential.InBehe’sview,suchamechanismcannothavebeenproducedthroughselection,sincegradualtransitionsfromonefunctioningprecursorofthesystemtoanotherwouldsimplyhavebeenimpossible.Atsomepointintheprocess,Beheargues,theremusthavebeenanabsolutebreak–ajumpor‘saltation’fromoneprecursortoanother.Onlyadesigningintelligence,Beheconcludes,couldhaveengineeredsuchachange.Intheopinionofhiscritics,however,thisclaimofdiscontinu-ityispreciselythepointatwhichhisargumentisvulnerable.13Therearefew,ifany,complexprocesseswhichshownotracesoftheirevolutionarypast.Furthermore,toassumethatsomethingisessentialnowisnottosaythatitwasalwaysessentialorthattherewasnoother,noweliminated,precursorprocesswhichperformedsomeothertaskinthepast.FromtheDarwinianpointofview,bloodclottingappearstoofferexemplarytestimonytoselection’spower.Almosteverystageseemstohavebeenmadefromsomeotherpro-cess,whichevolvedforadifferentfunction.14Thesameistrueforother,similarbiochemicalprocesses.Recently,forinstance,theKrebscycle,thebiochemicalprocesswhichcapturesenergyforthefunctioningcell,hasbeenshownindetailtobejerry-builtfromotheralreadyexistingparts.15Inanycase,criticsargue,apositionsuchasBehe’sleavesitselfopentomajortheologicalproblems.IfGod(oranintelligentdesigner)isneededtoproducetheverycom-plex,whythendidGodnotpreventthedreadfullybadbutverysim-ple?Somehorrendousailmentsstartwithasmallchangeinonemolecule.Whywasthisnotprevented–surelyataskwithintherangeofabeingwhocreatedtheblood-clottingcascade?HereWilliamDembskihassteppedin,supplyingtheologicalsup-portforBehe’sscience-basedargument.16Dembskiproposesan‘ex-planatoryfilter’.Hearguesthatthereisathree-tierleveltotheworldandtoitsexplanations.Somethingshappenjustasamatterofex-pectation,withregularity.Onethinksforinstanceofablue-eyedchildfromblue-eyedparents.Atthislevel,ascientificexplanationreferringtolawisadequate.ThentherearethingswhichhappenCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n372michaelruseoccasionally,bychance.Arandomnewfeature,causedbyamuta-tion.Herenoexplanationisneeded,otherthantosayithappenedbychance.Finallysomethingsaresoimprobable,sounlikely,wethinkthatlawandchanceareexcluded.Here,aswithbloodclotting,adesignerisneeded.17Aneatsolution,butproblematic.Itworksonlyiflaw,chanceanddesignaremutuallyexclusive.Butaretheoptionsexclusive?Whyshouldonenotsay–followingtheevolutionarygeneticistR.A.Fisher–thatnewvariations,causedbymutation,arisebychancewithrespecttoourknowledgeoftheappearanceofanyindi-vidualinstance,butarecertainlycausedlawfully?Whyshouldonenotsay–againfollowingFisher,whowasapractisingAnglican–thatGodstandsbehindeverything,whetherweourselvesseetheworkingoflawornot?18Dembskiissilentonthesepoints.Notsoothers.CantheDe-signer,theChristianGod,workthroughlawratherthanmiracle?AlvinPlantinga–arguablyNorthAmerica’sleadingphilosopherofreligion–ratherdoubtsthispossibility.ForPlantinga,topushGodbacktoaremotelaw-governedpastistoslidefromtheism(animma-nentGod)tosomeformofdeism(Godasunmovedmover).Plantingawrites:‘accordingtoserioustheism,Godisconstantly,immediately,intimately,anddirectlyactiveinhiscreation:heconstantlyupholdsitinexistenceandprovidentiallygovernsit.HeisimmediatelyanddirectlyactiveineverythingfromtheBigBangtothesparrow’sfall.Literallynothinghappenswithouthisupholdinghand.’Asatheist,therefore,onewouldexpectGodtointerveneinthecreation.Plantingacontinues:‘ThereisnothingintheleastuntowardinthethoughtthatonsomeoccasionsGodmightdosomethinginawaydifferentfromhisusualway–e.g.,raisesomeonefromthedeadorchangewaterintowine.’19Toargueotherwise,astheDarwinianwouldhaveusdo,istothrustusawayfromtruebelief.NotalltheistswouldagreewithPlantingaonthispoint.TheCatholicpriestErnanMcMullinrepliesthattherealissue‘isnotwhetherGodcouldhaveintervenedinthenaturalorder’,foritissurelywithinGod’spowertodoso.Rather,thequestioniswhetheritisatalllikelythatGodwouldhavedoneso.‘IntheabsenceoftheGenesisnarrative’,writesMcMullin,‘woulditappearlikelythattheGodofthesalvationstorywouldalsoactinaspecialwaytobringtheancestrallivingkindsintoexistence?IthardlyseemstoCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nBeliefinGodinaDarwinianage373bethecase.’20McMullinhimselfstillsfindsvirtueintheteleolog-icalargument,althoughheacceptsthattheargumentisnolongercompellingbutmoresomethingafterthefact(ofhavingcommittedoneselftoGodonothergrounds).Itislessaproofandmoreanillus-trationofthegloryofwhatGodhaswrought.McMullinpointsoutthatthereisavenerablestrainofChristianthoughtwhichregardscreationlessasamiraculousone-shotaffairandmuchmoreofanunfurlingthatwilltakeconsiderabletime.AugustineinparticularsawGod,whoHimselfstandsoutsidetime,ashavingcreatedevery-thinginaninstantbutintheformof‘seeds’ofpotentiality,whichwillthendevelopthroughtime.Thisisnotevolutionism;itisnotevenevolutionismbyanothernameorinanticipation;butitisathe-ologicalpositionwhichfindslaw-boundevolutionacongenialworldpicture.21iiiprogressIfonelooksatthewholesweepofevolutionaryhistory,fromtheemergenceofprimitivebacteriaonward,oneseesasequencemarkedbyaslowbutgradualriseincomplexityandsophistication.22Itisoverlysimplistictothinkofastraightprogressionfromseatolandtoairtoconsciousnessandculture;but,thatsaid,somethingmuchlikethisseemstohavehappened.Furthermore,ontheDarwinianview,thishasbeenaselection-drivenprocess.Withhumankindasitshighestpointandapparentlyinevitableproduct,Darwinianevo-lutionseemsnotmerelysomethingcompatiblewithChristianity,butpositivelysupportive.Certainlytherehavebeenthosewhohavebackedsuchaview.Famously(ornotoriously)inthelastcentury,theFrenchJesuitpalaeontologistPierreTeilharddeChardinclaimedthatthereisanupwardprogressiontolife,endingatsomethingcalledthe‘OmegaPoint’,whichheidentifiedwithJesusChrist.23Morerecently,theAnglicanpalaeontologistSimonConwayMorrishassuggestedthatlifeisboundtomoveupwardstowardsthehumanform.‘AlthoughtheremaybeabillionpotentialpathwaysforevolutiontofollowfromtheCambrianexplosion’,hehasargued,‘infacttherealrangeofpossibilitiesandhencetheexpectedendresultsappeartobemuchmorerestricted.’24Consequently,‘withincertainlimitstheoutcomeofevolutionaryprocessesmightberatherpredictable’.ItCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n374michaelruseisimportant,however,tonotetheextenttowhichbothTeilhardandConwayMorrisdonotbelongtothemainstreamofevolution-arythinking.Teilhardwasmuchinfluencedbythevitalistphiloso-pherHenriBergson,whointurntookmuchofhisevolutionismfromHerbertSpencer.Teilhard’ssciencewasstronglycriticisedbybiologists,especiallyPeterMedawar.25ConwayMorris’thinkingismoreinlinewithnon-Darwiniansentimentsaboutnon-adaptiveconstraints,andalsoverycontroversial.Interestingly,todaythereismuchsupportamongstunimpeach-ablyorthodoxDarwinians(includingthosewithlittlesympathyforreligion)foraprogressivistreadingofevolutionaryhistory,withselectionplayingakeyrole.ThesociobiologistEdwardO.Wilsonwritesthat:‘theoverallaverageacrossthehistoryoflifehasmovedfromthesimpleandfewtothemorecomplexandnumerous.Dur-ingthepastbillionyears,animalsasawholeevolvedupwardinbodysize,feedinganddefensivetechniques,brainandbehavioralcomplexity,socialorganization,andprecisionofenvironmentalcon-trol–ineachcasefartherfromthenonlivingstatethantheirsimplerantecedentsdid.’Headds:‘Progress,then,isapropertyoftheevo-lutionoflifeasawholebyalmostanyconceivableintuitivestandard,includingtheacquisitionofgoalsandintentionsinthebehaviorofanimals.’26Dawkinslikewisehasbeenattheforefrontofthosearguingthatupwardprogressismorethanmerecontingency.InatraditiongoingbacktoDarwinhimself,Dawkinsandlike-mindedbiologistsarguethatevolvinglineagesgetcaughtupin‘armsraces’,wheretheycompeteagainsteachother,thusimprovingadaptations.27Thepreygetsfasterandinresponsethepredatorgetsfaster,andthenincounter-responsethepreygetsyetfaster.Dawkinsarguesthattheultimateresultofthearmsraceistheemergence,withhumankind,ofcreatureswiththemostpowerfulmentalequipmentonearth.Thefactthatwehumansseemtobetwenty-threetimesmoreintelligentthanthehippopotamusdoesnotmakeourspecies‘higher’,inhisview;butitdoesrevealsomethingfundamentalaboutevolution.28Inrecentyears,Dawkinshascomeincreasinglytodescribehumanintelligenceasthenon-contingentapotheosisoftheselection-drivencourseofbiologicalhistory.29Therearelong-standingcriticismsofthiswholelineofargumen-tation.Forastart,modernevolutionaryideasareinparttheoffspringofEnlightenmenthopesandbeliefsinsocialandculturalprogress,CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nBeliefinGodinaDarwinianage375soitisnotsurprisingthatevolutionists,eventoday,shouldfindthattheirtheoriessupportprogress.Foralloftheappealtonaturalselec-tion,theprogressivismmaystillbenomorethanaculturalglossonthescience.30Moreover,therelationshipbetweentheismandpro-gressivismisfarfromstraightforward.Traditionally,thephilosophyofprogresshasbeenconsidereddeeplyantitheticaltoChristianbe-liefs,forprogressisthealternativetotheChristian’sbeliefthatweareinthehandsofProvidence,thatweourselvescanimprovenoth-ing,anditisonlythroughGod’sgracethatwecanhavehopeofsalvation.31Teilhardranintotroublewithhisauthoritiesandwasforbiddentopublishinhislifetime.Onthesideofscience,therearethose–thepalaeontologistStephenJayGouldparticularly,elo-quentlyandadamantlyinrecentyears–whohavearguedthatevo-lutionaryprogressisanillusion,andthatwearegoingnowhere,slowly.32Drawingattentiontotheasteroidthatwipedoutthedi-nosaurssome65millionyearsago,Gouldconcludedthat,sincethereisnoevidencethatthedinosaurswereevolvinginthedirectionoflargerbrainsize,‘wemustassumethatconsciousnesswouldnothaveevolvedonourplanetifacosmiccatastrophehadnotclaimedthedinosaursasvictims.Inanentirelyliteralsense,weoweourexistence,aslargeandreasoningmammals,toourluckystars.’33Noneoftheseargumentsisirresistible.Onecanarguethatthefactthatsocialprogresswasthespurtoevolutionismdoesnotmeanthat,scientifically,onemustrejectthenotion.ManyChris-tianshavemadeanaccommodationwithprogress.34Asforthenon-directednessofevolution,onecanpointoutthat,howeverdefinedandhowevercaused,Gouldseemstoallowsomekindofriseofcom-plexity.Moreover,many,includingpalaeontologists,thinkhiswor-riesareoverblown.35PerhapseasiestfortheChristianistosidestepthewholedebatebytakingtheneo-AugustinianpositionendorsedbyMcMullin–thatthelawsofnatureareGod’slaws,andHecouldcreatehumanshoweverHewished.Progressornot,directionorcon-tingency:forbothoptions,‘theoutcomeisofGod’smaking,andfromthebiblicalstandpointcouldproperlybesaidtobepartofGod’splan’.36ThepointhereisthatGodisoutsidetimeandhenceforHim,thethought,thecreationandtheproductareallone.Godisnotsimplyforecastingonthebasisofwhatwillhappen.‘ForGodtoplanisfortheoutcometooccur.Thereisnointervalbetweenthedecisionandcompletion.’37CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n376michaelruseivtheproblemofphysicalevilThereisaspecialprobleminherentintheideathatGodmighthavechosentocreatehumans,andallotherspecies,throughnaturalse-lection.Onthefaceofit,naturalselectionisegregiouslywastefulandcruel.Considerthosearmsraces,whichproduceadaptivetraitsinpredatorandpreyspeciesatthecostofthedestructionofgener-ationsofindividualcreatures.WhatsortofGodenactsalawthatimposessuchsufferingonthesentientworld?Attheveryleast,Godcomesacrossasasadistwhohassetupakindofongoing,gladiato-rialcontestasaconditionofsurvivalhereonearth.Better,somesuggest,toinferthatthereisnoGod,andnolargermeaningtothesuffering.AccordingtoDawkins,the‘universeweobservehaspreciselythepropertiesweshouldexpectifthereis,atbottom,nodesign,nopurpose,noevilandnogood,nothingbutblind,pitilessindifference’.38Thisproblemisaspecial,Darwiniancaseofamoreancientthe-ologicalproblem,theproblemofevil.IfGodis(asthetheistinsists)alllovingandallpowerful,thenwhydoesevilexist?IfGodwereallpowerfulGodcouldstopit,andifGodwerealllovingGodwouldstopit.Traditionallythisproblemisdividedintotwoparts,thatofhuman-causedevil(Auschwitz)andthatofphysicalevil(anearth-quake).Forthemoment,letusconcentrateonphysicalevil,initsDarwiniandimensions,recognisingimmediatelythat,althoughtheproblemofphysicalevilisnotaproblemraisedexclusivelybyDarwinism,theproblemisoneDarwinismexacerbates.Notheistcan(ordoes)takelightlythechallengeofreconcilingGod’sputativebeneficencewiththeundeniableexistenceofphys-icalevil.Atraditionalcountermoveistoarguethatbeingallpow-erfuldoesnotimplytheabilitytodotheimpossible.Onthisar-gument,Godcannotmake2+2=5,andnomorecanGod,havingdecidedtocreatethroughlaw,makephysicalevildisappear.Itisasif,onceGodhadelectedforalaw-governeduniverse,physicalevilsim-plycameaspartofthepackage.Alongtheselines,thephilosopherB.R.Reichenbachhasasked,‘whatwoulditentailtoalterthenat-urallawsregardingdigestion,sothatarsenicorotherpoisonswouldnotnegativelyaffectmyconstitution?Wouldnoteitherarsenicormyownphysiologicalcompositionorbothhavetobealteredsuchthattheywould,ineffect,bedifferentfromthepresentobjectswhichCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nBeliefinGodinaDarwinianage377wenowcallarsenicorhumandigestiveorgans?’39Paradoxically,per-haps,Dawkinshimselfaidsthislineofargument.Hehaslongmain-tainedthattheonlywayinwhichcomplexadaptationcouldhavebeenproducedbylawisthroughnaturalselection.Hearguesthatalternativemechanismsforproducingadaptation(notablyLamarck-ism)donotinfactwork,whilealternativemechanismsforproducingnon-adaptivechange(notablyevolutionbyjumps,orsaltationism)areinadequate.ForDawkins,if‘alife-formdisplaysadaptivecom-plexity’,anywhereintheuniverse,then‘itwillalwaysberecogniz-ableasDarwinianlife’.40Inshort,ifGodwastocreatethroughlaw,thenithadtobethroughDarwinianlaw.Therewasnootherchoice.(Thisofcourseisnottosaythat,knowingthesubsequentpain,Godwasrighttocreateatall,butthatisanothermatter,andnoneofDarwinism’sbusiness.)Thereareother,perhapsmoretheologicalresponsestotheprob-lemofevil.Forsome,theproblemhasmeantaradicalrethinkingoftheirconceptionofGod.ParticularlyinfluentialherehasbeentheprocessphilosophyofAlfredNorthWhitehead,whoarguedthatweseeintheworldGod’sownstruggletoimposeHiswillonmatterandtobringthingstoatriumphantconclusion.41Clearlythiswholepositionisdeeplyevolutionary,forithasatitsheartaGodwhoisnotfixedandbeyondimprovement,onceandforall,butratherchanginganditselfstrivingtowardsgreaterperfection.Forthisreasonalone,moretraditionalChristiansfindthistheologyunacceptable–itistocompromiseGod’somnipotence.Rememberthat,forAugustine,Godstandsoutsidetimeandhencebeyondchange.Manyofthetraditionalistspreferratherapositiononevilwhichmakesitessential,insomeway,formoralimprovement.Thisearthofoursisthevaleof‘soulmaking’,asweareburnishedandtem-peredbystrifeandsuffering.ThephilosopherJohnHickarguesthat,withoutphysicalevil,wewouldfeelnoinclinationtobetterour-selvesinanyway.‘Thesystematiceliminationofunjustsuffering,andtheconsequentapportioningofsufferingtodesert,wouldentailthattherewouldbenodoingoftherightsimplybecauseitisrightandwithoutanyexpectationofreward.’42Withoutrandompainandsuffering,sotheargumentgoes,wewouldalwaysandonlydogoodontheassuredexpectationofreward.Therewouldneverbethepos-sibilityorinclinationtodogoodsimplybecauseitisgood:toexercisewhatKantcalledthe‘goodwill’,actingvirtuouslypurelyforvirtue’sCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n378michaelrusesake.Ofcourse,whetherornotwelltaken,noneofthislineofar-gumenthasmuchtodowithevolutionperse.However,itisoftenboundupwithanappealtomystery–ultimatelyphysicalevilismysteriousandinexplicable–andthisdoeshavesomethingtodowithevolution,andwithDarwinisminparticular.Ireturntothepointbelow.vthesoulThetimehascometomovefromGod’ssideoftherelationshipbe-tweenGodandhumankind,andtoconsiderissuesofspecialrele-vancetothetheisticviewofwhatitistobehuman.Christiandoc-trineproclaimsthatwehumanshaveimmortalsouls.Thesesoulsarenottobeidentifieddirectlywithmindandconsciousness,butthereisacloselink.ForAquinas,soulsarethepossessionofallliv-ingthings.Humansalonehave‘intellectualsouls’.43Obviously,theDarwinianpositionimpingeshere.ButwhatistheDarwinianposi-tion?Thereisnostandardview,butallwouldinsistthatthemindisinsomesenseconnectedtothebrain,emergentinsomeway,andthatthemind/brainevolvedforadaptivereasons.Presumably,brainsgrewlargerandmorecomplex,mindsstartedtocomeintobeing,andthenperhapsprovedtheirownadaptiveworthbydrag-gingbrainsalongafterthem.Wilsonproposessomethinghecallsatheoryof‘autocatalytic’evolution:atpointsorthresholdsonegetspositivefeedbackandevolutiongoesveryrapidly.44Inhumanevolu-tionthiscouldhavehappenedtwice.First,whenancestralhumansbeganwalkingupright,itpaideithertobeonallfours,ortobeontwolegs,butnottobein-between.Therewasthusstrongselectionpressurenottodelaythetransitionfromonetotheother.Second,whenancestralhumansdevelopedlargebrains.Thesearesoexpen-sivetoproduceandmaintainthattheyneedtobereallybigortheirbenefitsdonotoutweightheircosts.Assoonasonegetsintodetails,ofcourse,onegetsintospecula-tion.TheevolutionofthebrainandofconsciousnessisamassiveproblemandnoonecouldpretendthatDarwiniansnowhaveafullandcanonicalanswer.Butonethingshouldbeemphasised:althoughDarwiniansareseekinganaturalexplanation,thisisnotattheex-penseofdenyingordowngradingconsciousness.Nooneisclaimingthatitdoesnotexistorisnotimportant.Theveryoppositeinfact.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nBeliefinGodinaDarwinianage379‘Sayingthatwehavenoscientificexplanationofsentienceisnotthesameassayingthatsentiencedoesnotexistatall’,writesthelinguistandevolutionarypsychologistStevenPinker.‘IamascertainthatIamsentientasIamcertainofanything,andIbetyoufeelthesame.ThoughIconcedethatmycuriosityaboutsentiencemayneverbesatisfied,IrefusetobelievethatIamjustconfusedwhenIthinkIamsentientatall!’45Forpresentpurposes,wecanshort-circuitmostofthisdebate.Evenifthefullexplanationofconsciousnessremainshiddenfromscientificeyes,thereisreasontothinkthatthewaytheDarwinianapproachestheproblemisonewhichresonatesverymuchwithChristianthinking,especiallywiththeofficialpositionofmodern-dayCatholicism.FewDarwinianstodaywouldthinkthatthecon-sciousmindinvolvesadistinctsubstance,aswassupposedbyPlatoinantiquityandDescartesinmoderntimes.Rather,theywouldthinkthatconsciousnessisrootedinthematerialworld,andcomesaboutbecauseofthedistinctiveorganisationofthebrain.OrdertheneuronsonewayandyougetShakespeare.OrderthemanotherwayandyougetHitler,oranidiot,ornothingatall.ItismuchthesamewithChristianity,particularlywithThomism.ThetraditionofThomasAquinas,reflectingtheideasofAristotleinDeAnima,seesthesoulasembodiedinorganisationratherthanbeingaseparatesubstance.ForAristotleandAquinas,thehumansoulislessamate-rialthing,andmoreaprincipleofordering,orwhat,inAristotelianterms,iscalledthe‘form’.46Itexistsandcanfunctioncausally–Aquinasspeaksof‘actuating’–butitisnotasubstance.Rather,‘thesoulistheultimateprinciple’,enablingallvitalactions;itisthemotivefactorbehindnutrition,sensation,locomotionandactsofunderstanding.ForAquinas,‘thisprimefactorinintellectualactiv-ity,whetherwecallitmindorintellectualsoul,istheformativeprincipleofthebody’.47ThisisnottosaythatalltensionsbetweentheDarwinianviewofconsciousnessandtheChristianviewofthesoularenowgone.EvenifyouagreethatthereareinterestingandfruitfulparallelsbetweentheAristotle/AquinasapproachtosoulsandconsciousnessandtheDarwinianapproachtothataspectofintellectandconsciousnesswhichmakeshumansspecial,therearestillproblemsremaining.Thesearehighlightedbythepopulationgeneticist(andsometimeDominicanpriest)FranciscoJ.Ayala.48ThereisthequestionoftheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n380michaelruseintroductionofthesoul,andthentherearesubsequentquestionsaboutsuchmattersasoriginalsin.Ifoneidentifiesthesoulfairlycloselywiththemind,thenoneis(asjustabove)rathersuggestinganaturaland(fortheDarwinian)gradualevolution.ThisgoesagainstChristiantheology,asstressedbythePopeinhisrecentpapalletter.Hewouldtakethewholeissueoutoftherangeofscience.‘Thesciencesofobservationdescribeandmeasurethemultiplemanifes-tationsoflifewithincreasingprecisionandcorrelatethemwiththetimeline.Themomentoftransitiontothespiritualcannotbetheobjectofthiskindofobservation.’49Rather,‘theexperienceofmeta-physicalknowledge,ofself-awarenessandself-reflection,ofmoralconscience,freedom,oragain,ofaestheticandreligiousexperience,fallswithinthecompetenceofphilosophicalanalysisandreflec-tion,whiletheologybringsoutitsultimatemeaningaccordingtotheCreator’splans’.ForJohnPaul,thesoulissomethingintroducedatonepointintime,miraculously.‘Withman,then,wefindour-selvesinthepresenceofanontologicaldifference,anontologicalleap,onecouldsay.’50Oncewestoptreatingthesoulandthemindasequivalent,therapprochementsketchedabovebeginstolooklesslikely.Evolution-arybiologistsbelievethatagroupofproto-humansevolvedintoearlyhumans.Therewasnobottleneckdowntojusttwopeople,amaleandafemale,anAdamandanEve.AreDarwinianChristianstobe-lievethatonegenerationhadnosoulsandthenextdid,eventhough,intellectually,theywerevirtuallyidentical?Arewetobelievethatonepairhadsoulsandnoothers?Popularrecentlyhasbeenthe‘Evehypothesis’,arguing(onthebasisofmitochondrialevidence)thatallhumansaredescendedfromonewoman.ButasAyalapointsout,thisdoesnotmeanthatwehadnoothercontemporaneousfe-maleancestors–weallshareatleastoneancestorbutwehadmanyothers.51Logicallyonecancertainlyinsistthatsoulswereinsertedatonespecificpoint,butinspiritthisgoesagainstDarwinism.Oronecansuggestthat(intellectual)soulsarenotnecessarilysomethingpossessedonlybyhumans,althoughthiswouldbecontestedbytraditionalChristians.Thepointisthattherearequestionshere–somewouldsaytensions–thathavetobeansweredandresolved.DarwinismthrowsupmajorquestionsfortheChristianwhichcan-notbeignored.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nBeliefinGodinaDarwinianage381vithemorallifeThequestionofhumanoriginsandofourimmortalsoulsleadsstraighttoanotherimportantpointofcontactbetweenDarwinismandChristianity.BeingmadeintheimageofGodentailsthatwearebeingswithfreedomandchoice,withtheabilitytodorightandwrong.FortheChristian,wehumansarefallenbeings,taintedwithoriginalsin.Wearefreetochoosethegoodbutwehaveatendencytofallaway,todothatwhichweshouldnot.Hencetheexistenceofmoralevil.HowdoestheChristianmoralperspectiveonhumannaturefitwiththetheoryofevolutionthroughnaturalselection?Letusbeginwiththequestionofmoralityandthenmovetothequestionoffreedom.Moralcodesanddirectivesareanessentialpartoftheism.52Judaismhasitstencommandments,Christianityitsadditionallovecommandment,andIslamlikewiseitsdirectives,forinstanceaboutobligationstoorphansandtowidows.PopularlorehasitthathereisapointofmajorconflictwithDarwinism,forthesciencepro-motesaverydifferentsetofethicalnorms.53Supposedly,evolutiongivesrise(underthenameof‘socialDarwinism’)toextremelaissez-faireeconomics,toacreedofselfishness,andatworsttoabloodylustforbattleandextermination.54Struggleforexistenceinnature;struggleforexistenceinhumanaffairs.Butthisisasimplisticread-ingofmatters,particularlywithrespecttomodernthinkers.No-toriously,E.O.WilsonisardentinhisDarwinianethicising,andyethismoraldirectivestranslateintoanenthusiasmforbiodiver-sityandanurgetopreservethevanishingBrazilianrainforests.55Intruedispensationalistfashion,hewarnsofanecologicalArmaged-dontocomeandbegsustorepentourprofligatewaysbeforeitistoolate.56SoundingmuchlikethetheistwhointerpretsGod’schargetoAdamasoneofstewardship,Wilsontellsusthatwearetorulenatureandnottodestroyit.Now,alas,wearedestroyingspeciesatanunprecentedrate,and,mosttragically,amongtheworstaffectedplacesaretherainforestsandjunglesofthetropics.Wemustdosomethingbeforeitistoolate.Wemustrespond.Thechallengeliesbeforeus.RecentDarwiniantheorisinghastakenasomewhatdifferenttacktothequestionofmorality.Withthedevelopmentof‘sociobiol-ogy’,itisnowarguedthatmuchanimalsocialbehaviour–andthisCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n382michaelruseincludeshumansocialbehaviour–wasshapedbyselectiveforcesinthepast.57Successinlife’sstrugglescandependasmuchoncoop-erationasonconflict,andthisgivesriseto‘altruism’,wherethisisunderstoodasbehaviourwhichbenefitsothersontheexpectation(notnecessarilyconscious)ofbenefitsgiveninreturn.58Forobviousreasons,sociobiologyhasattractedtheattentionofthoseinterestedinmoralquestions.59Anincreasingnumberofphilosophers,theolo-giansandothersfeelthatthereisheretrulyalinkbetweenbiologyandthesemostcentralofhumanactivitiesandfeelings.Needlesstosay,actsofbiologicalaltruismarenotnecessarilymoralacts;sim-plygoingblindlythroughthemotionsisnotthesameasdeliber-atelydoingthingsbecausetheyarerightandrefrainingfromotherthingsbecausetheyarewrong.Butperhaps,itissuggested,inordertogetushumanstobegoodbiologicalaltruists–somethingofgreatimportanceforanimalslikeus,whocansucceedonlyifweworktogether–selectionhasputintoplacesentimentswhichinspireustomoralaction.Inotherwords,oursenseofrightandwrongisanadaptationputintoplacebynaturalselectiontomakeusgoodcooperators.60SuchaDarwinianpictureofhumannatureobviouslymesheswellwiththecentralmoraltenetsofChristianity,aswellasthoseofothergreatworldreligions.Thecentrallovecommandment–‘loveyourneighbourasyourself’–isaperfectexemplificationofDarwinian,enlightenedself-interest.IfIhelpyouwhenyouneedit,thenIcanexpectyoutohelpmewhenIneedit.Itcostsmelittletopullyououtofthewell,butitmeansmuchtomewhenyoupullmeoutofthewell.PerhapssometensionarisesbecausetheDarwinianiscommittedtoadifferentialmorality–aidtocloserelativesfirst,andonlylatertoothersinone’sgroup,andfinally(ifatall)tooutsiders.ThisdoesnotharmonisewithJesus’parableoftheGoodSamaritan.Butreligionsthemselveshavealwayswrestledwiththisissue–‘DoIhaveanequalobligationtoallorshouldIputfamilyandfriendsfirst?’Moreover,religionsarebynomeansasinevitablyuniversal-isticascertainthemesandsayingsintheGospelsmightsuggest.Judaismhasoftenseemedaninwardlylookingreligion,concernedfirstandmostsignificantlywiththegoodofthetribe.Likewise,thefollowersofJesusspentmuchtimejustifyingspecialattitudestorelativesandtothoseinone’sgroup.61IntheNewTestament,onereadsthatif‘anyonedoesnotprovideforhisrelatives,andespeciallyCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nBeliefinGodinaDarwinianage383forhisownfamily,hehasdisownedthefaithandisworsethananunbeliever’.62Whataboutfreedom?Itiscentraltotheismthatwehumans,thoughfallen,arefreetochoosebetweengoodandill.ButdoesnotacausaltheorylikeDarwinismcastdoubtonbothourfallennessandourfreedom?IsnotDarwinismparticularlyegregiousinthisrespect?Afterall,aswehaveseen,theDarwinianreadingofAdamandEveasatbestmythologicalandsymbolicdoesnotseemtoleavemuchscopefortherealityoforiginalsin.Asforfreewill,itisoftensaidthatsociobiologyimplies‘geneticdeterminism’,withhumansbeingmeremarionettesdancingtothetuneoftheirDNA.63Ifacommit-menttoDarwinismhasanysuchimplication,thatdoesnotbodewellforscience–religionharmonyontheissueoffreewill.Oncloserinspection,however,mattersarelessstraightforward.Foronething,itisfarfromclearthatweshouldaccepttheage-oldoppositionof‘determinism’and‘freedom’.Yes,Darwiniantheoryiscausal,andinthatsensedeterministic.But,ononeview,determin-ismisnottheoppositeofgenuinefreedom;rather,itisapreconditionforitsexistence.Considerthat,inacompletelyrandomworld,theresultsofone’sownfreelychosenactionswouldnotresultintheoutcomesthatonehadintended.64Genuinefreedommayexistonlyinadeterministicworld.Moreover,whileitistruethatDarwiniansociobiologyisgeneticallydeterministic,weshouldnotethelevelofdeterminismbeingimposed.Itisclaimedthatourmoralsentimentsandattitudesderivefromourgenes(inthecontextofculture,ofcourse).Inotherwords,biologydetermineswhatweregardasrightandwrong.Butnoone,otherthantheexistentialistsattheirmostextreme,everclaimedthatwehavefreedomaboutthecontentofrightandwrong.Forsociobiologistsasformostotherthinkers,thefreedomcomesinthechoicetobegoodornot.TheDarwinianal-lows–insistson–adimensionofautonomyforhumans.65Antsarehardwiredtodowhattheydo,withoutchoice.Buthumans,thankstotheirlargebrainsandsubsequentintelligence,havethechoicetofollowthedictatesofconscienceortobeselfish.Indeed,biologicalstudiesofbehaviourhaveifanythingmadeusappreciatefarmorevividlythanbeforehowunlikehardwiredin-sectswehumansare.Ifsomethinggoeswrong,theinsectshavenorecourse,nowayofescapingtheirproblems.DanielDennetttellsofawaspwhichbringsfoodtoitsnesttoprovisionitsyoung:CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n384michaelruseThewasp’sroutineistobringtheparalyzedcrickettotheburrow,leaveitonthethreshold,goinsidetoseethatalliswell,emerge,andthendragthecricketin.Ifthecricketismovedafewinchesawaywhilethewaspisinsidemakingherpreliminaryinspection,thewasp,onemergingfromtheburrow,willbringthecricketbacktothethreshold,butnotinside,andwillthenrepeatthepreparatoryprocedureofenteringtheburrowtoseethateverythingisallright.Thiscangoonandonindefinitely.‘Thewaspneverthinksofpullingthecricketstraightin.Ononeoccasionthisprocedurewasrepeatedfortytimes,alwayswiththesameresult.’66Wehumans,wholivesocially,whoinvestsomucheffortinraisingbutafewoffspring,cannotaffordtobewaspish.Fortunately,wedohaveways–putinplacebyselectionbecauseofthekindofanimalsthatweare–whichenableustothinkaboutourproblemsandchallengesandrespondtoobstacles.AlthoughwearecausallyboundinthisDarwinianworld,wethushaveadimensionofthefreedomdemandedbytheChristian,thefreedomtodogoodorill.Andhere,perhaps,weedgetowardsaDarwinianglossonoriginalsin.Ifthesociobiologistsareright,thenitispartofourbiologicalheritagetobetornbyconflictingemotions.Inpart,whatonewantstodoiswhatisinone’sowndirectinterest.Inpart,whatonewantstodoiswhatisintheinterestsofothers.Wearepulledintwodirectionsatonce.TheNewTestamentwelldescribesourdividedpredicament.‘Iseeinmymembersanotherlawatwarwiththelawofmymindandmakingmecaptivetothelawofsinwhichdwellsinmymembers.’67Wehavefreedom,butwealsohaveconflictingdesires.Sosometimeswedowhatweshould–wefollowthedictatesofmorality–andsometimeswedonot.WhattheChristiansdescribed,theDarwinianshaveexplained.viimysteryCentraltotheismisthenotionofmystery:thatwecanapproachGodbutashortway,andthatultimatelyHisnaturemustliebeyondtheveil.Wearefinite,andHeisinfinite.ThomistsstressthatonecaninsomesensespeakofGodanalogically–itmakessensetospeakofGodasaparent,whereasitmakeslittleornosensetospeakofGodas(say)theEmpireStateBuilding–buttrulyGodisbeyondourken.Makingavirtuefromthislimitation,theologiansCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nBeliefinGodinaDarwinianage385haveseenanotherresponsetotheproblemofphysicalevil.Althoughstressingthesignificanceofphysicalevilforhumansoulmaking,thephilosopherJohnHickreturns,intheend,toourblindnessbesidethetrueCreatorofall.Hewrites:‘Theonlyappealleftistomystery.Thisisnot,however,merelyanappealtothenegativefactthatwecannotdiscernanyrationaleofhumansuffering.Itmaybethattheverymysteriousnessofthislifeisanimportantaspectofitscharacterasasphereofsoulmaking.’68ItistheveryfactthatsufferingmakesnosensethatmakesitsignificantfortheChristian.Truespiritualdevelopmentdemandsthatoneovercometheapparentirrationalitythroughanappealtofaith.Mysterythereforeissomethingpositive.Referringtoatra-ditionwhichincludesbothKierkegaardandKarlBarth–thelatteroneofthegreatesttheologiansofthetwentiethcentury–JohnHaughtwrites:‘TheBible...proclaimstheparadoxicalpossibil-ityoffaithandhopeinGodinspiteofallevilandsuffering.Someofuswouldevenarguethatfaithhasnointensityordepthunlessitisaleapintotheunknowninthefaceofsuchabsurdity.Faithisalwaysfaith“inspiteof”allthedifficultiesthatdefyreasonandscience.’69ManyDarwiniansfindthisattitudequiteincompatiblewiththeircommitmenttothatrationalityandevidenceexemplifiedbyDar-winiantheory.Dennettcomplainstothemysterians:‘Youmustnotexpectmetogoalongwithyourdefenseoffaithasapathtotruthifatanypointyouappealtotheverydispensationyouaresuppos-edlytryingtojustify.Beforeyouappealtofaithwhenreasonhasyoubackedintoacorner,thinkaboutwhetheryoureallywanttoaban-donreasonwhenreasonisonyourside.’70Dennettpointsoutthatweallusereasoningandevidencewhenitsuitsus.Onwhatgrounds,then,doweabandonthemwhenwecometothebiggestquestionsofall?Bluntly,hepressesthepointthat,howevermuchdiscomfortwesaveourselvesbylettingfaithdotheworkthatreasonshoulddo,theintellectualjustificationisnil.‘Ifyouthinkthatthiscommonbutunspokenunderstandingaboutfaithisanythingbetterthanso-ciallyusefulobfuscationtoavoidmutualembarrassmentandlossofface,youhaveeitherseenmuchmoredeeplyintothisissuethananyphilosophereverhas(fornonehasevercomeupwithagooddefenseofthis)oryouarekiddingyourself.’71Nevertheless,thereisalineofultra-DarwinianthoughtthatmightcalmDennett’sworry.NaturalselectioncareslittleaboutCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n386michaelrusetruthandknowledgeintheirownright.Itcaresonlyaboutsurvivalandreproduction.Forthisreason,selectiondidnotdesignhumanstopeerintotheultimatemysteriesoftheuniverse.Rather,fromwhatweknowofhumanevolution,weweredesignedtocomedownfromthetrees,moveontotheplains,andtobecomescavengers–pickingupthepiecesafterthebigpredatorshadhadtheirfill.Inthelightofthisevolutionaryheritage,weshouldperhapsnotexpectthatwearecapableoffindingthetruthabouteverything.Answerstosomequestion,evensomeofthemostimportantquestions–suchaswhyagoodGodwouldpermitevilintheworld–couldbeforeverhiddenfromus.Toquotethegreattwentieth-centuryevolutionistJ.B.S.Haldane:‘[M]yownsuspicionisthattheuni-verseisnotonlyqueererthanwesuppose,butqueererthanwecansuppose.’72AnargumentalongtheselinesobviouslydoesnotvindicateChris-tianityasreasonable,nordoesitcountasasolutiontotheproblemofevil.Thepoint,rather,isthatifonewishestoemphasisethemysteryoflife–andsuchanemphasishasalwaysbeencentraltoChristianfaith–thenthereiswarrantinDarwinismforjustsuchanemphasis.TheDarwinianagreeswiththeChristianthatitisnotnecessarilywithinthereachofhumankindtoknoweverything.viiidarwinismandreligionThereisstillmuchdebateabouttheproperrelationshipbetweenDarwinismandreligion,andbetweenscienceandreligionmoregenerally.73Some,includingRichardDawkinsinourdayandThomasHenryHuxleybeforehim,thinkscienceandreligionarenecessarilyinconflict.Others,includingStephenJayGouldandneo-orthodoxtheologianssuchasKarlBarth,thinkthatscienceandre-ligiondonotspeaktothesamethings.Athirdgroup,includingthePope,thinkthatscienceandreligiontouchandoverlapbutarees-sentiallyseparate.Yetanotherparty,prominentlythefollowersofWhitehead,wouldintegratescienceandreligion.Wehaveseenallofthesedifferentpositionsexhibitedintheabovediscussion.Mostpeopletendtobesomewhatecumenicalontheseissues.Whenthescienceseemstobereasonablyfavourable,theydonotmindacertaindegreeofinteraction.Whenthesciencethreatensreligiousbelief,thetwoarekeptfairlyseparate.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nBeliefinGodinaDarwinianage387ItisnosurprisethatDarwinismshouldremainsocentraltothescience–religiondebate.Inmajorrespectsanoutgrowthofreligion,theDarwiniantheoryofnaturalselectionoffersanswerstoquestionsthatareofinterestandconcerntothereligiousbeliever,especiallytotheWesterntheist.74Thereareasyetnodefinitiveanswerstoallofthequestions.Indeedthereisprobablymoredebateanddiscus-sionandcontroversyonthesemattersnowthanatanytimesincetheOrigin.MyownopinionisthatthereisnoabsolutebarriertoacommittedDarwinianbeingaChristian,orindeedtoadheringtoanyotherofthemajorreligionsoftheWest.75Clearlyitwillnotalwaysbeeasy,butnooneeverthoughtthatitwouldbe.Whatisencouragingisthatevenwithin–especiallywithin–themostor-thodoxandcommittedofDarwinianpositions,thereismuchthatiscongenialtoabelieverofafairlyconservativenature.Design,pain,souls,freedom,sin,mystery:alloftheseandmoreareilluminatedfromaDarwinianperspective.Onecannotaskformuchmorethanthis.Darwinismisoneofthemostimportantandstimulatingideasknowntohumankind.Itisalwayschallenging;itisnotnecessarilyalwaysthreatening.notes1.Ruse2000a.2.Holden2000,431.3.JohnPaulII1997.4.Ward1996,63.5.Dawkins1997b,399.6.Ruse2000a,ch.3.7.Ruse1999a.8.Williams1966.9.Dawkins1986,5.10.BarrowandTipler1986.11.Weinberg2001.12.Behe1996.13.Pennock1998.14.Doolittle1997.15.K.Miller1999.16.Dembski1998a,b.17.Dembski1998a,98.18.Fisher1930,1947.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n388michaelruse19.Plantinga1997,149.20.McMullin1991,inHullandRuse1998,712.21.McMullin1993.22.Ruse1993a.23.TeilharddeChardin1955.24.ConwayMorris1998,202.25.Medawar1967.26.E.O.Wilson1992,187.27.DawkinsandKrebs1979.28.Dawkins1986.29.Dawkins1997a.30.Ruse1996,1999b.31.Bury1920.32.Gould1989,1996.33.Gould1989,318.34.Wagar1972.35.Vermeij1987;ConwayMorris1998.36.McMullin1996,156–7.37.McMullin1996,157.38.Dawkins1995,133.39.Reichenbach1976,185.40.Dawkins1983,423.41.Haught1995.42.Hick1978,333.43.Aquinas1970,43;SummaTheologiae(hereafterST)1a,76,1.44.E.O.Wilson1975.45.Pinker1997,148.46.Frede1992.47.Aquinas1970,43;ST1a,76,1.48.Ayala1967.49.JohnPaulII1997,383.50.JohnPaulII1997,383.51.Ayala1998.52.Ruse2000a.53.Ruse2000a.54.Paul,thisvolume.55.E.O.Wilson1992.56.E.O.Wilson1975.57.Ruse1985.58.E.O.Wilson1975.59.Ruse1994;Murphy1982;Skyrms1996.60.RuseandWilson1985,1986;Rosenberg,thisvolume.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nBeliefinGodinaDarwinianage38961.Wallwork1982.62.1Timothy5.8.63.Ruse1985.64.Ayer1954.65.Ruse1987;Dennett1984.66.Dennett1984,11,quotingWooldridge1963,82.67.Romans7.23.68.Hick1978,333–4.69.Haught1995,59.70.Dennett1995,154.71.Dennett1995,154–5.72.Haldane1927,208–9;Pinker1997makesasimilarpoint.73.Barbour1988;Gould1999.74.Brooke,thisvolume.75.Ruse2000a,b.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\ndanielc.dennett16InDarwin’swake,whereamI?Parfoisjepense;etparfois,jesuis.PaulValery´1Valery’s‘VariationsurDescartes’excellentlyevokesthevanishing´actthathashauntedphilosophyeversinceDarwinoverturnedtheCartesiantradition.Ifmybodyiscomposedofnothingbutateamofafewtrillionroboticcells,mindlesslyinteractingtoproduceallthelarge-scalepatternsthattraditionwouldattributetothenon-mechanicalworkingsofmymind,thereseemstobenothingleftovertobeme.LurkinginDarwin’sshadowthereisabugbear:theincredibleDisappearingSelf.2OneofDarwin’searliestcritics,RobertMacKenzie,sawwhatwascomingandcouldscarcelycontainhisoutrage:Inthetheorywithwhichwehavetodeal,AbsoluteIgnoranceistheartificer;sothatwemayenunciateasthefundamentalprincipleofthewholesys-tem,that,inordertomakeaperfectandbeautifulmachine,itisnotrequisitetoknowhowtomakeit.Thispropositionwillbefound,oncarefulexamination,toexpress,incondensedform,theessen-tialpurportoftheTheory,andtoexpressinafewwordsallMr.Darwin’smeaning;who,byastrangeinversionofreasoning,seemstothinkAbsoluteIgnorancefullyqualifiedtotaketheplaceofAbsoluteWisdominalltheachievementsofcreativeskill.3This‘strangeinversionofreasoning’promises–orthreatens–todis-solvetheCartesianrescogitansasthewellspringofcreativity,andthenwherewillwebe?Nowhere,itseems.Itseemsthatifcreativitygets‘reduced’to‘meremechanism’wewillbeshownnottoexistatall.Or,wewillexist,butwewon’tbethinkers,wewon’tmanifest393CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n394danielc.dennettgenuine‘Wisdominalltheachievementsofcreativeskill’.TheindividualasAuthorofworksanddeedswillbedemoted:aperson,itseems,isabarelysalientnexus,amereslubinthefabricofcausation.Wheneverwezoominontheactofcreation,itseemswelosesightofit.Thegeniuswethoughtwecouldseefromadistancegetsreplacedatthelastinstantbystupidmachinery,anechoofDarwin’sshockingsubstitutionofAbsoluteIgnoranceforAbsoluteWisdominthecreationofthebiosphere.ManypeopledislikeDarwinismintheirguts,andofalltheill-lit,murkyreasonsforantipathytoDarwinism,thisonehasalwaysstruckmeasthedeepest,butonlyinthesenseofbeingthemostentrenched,theleastaccessibletorationalcriticism.Therearethoughtfulpeoplewhoscoffatcre-ationism,dismissdualismoutofhand,pledgeallegiancetoacademichumanism–andthengetquitesquirrellywhensomebodyproposesaDarwiniantheoryofcreativeintelligence.Theveryideathatalltheworksofhumangeniuscanbeunderstoodintheendtobemecha-nisticallygeneratedproductsofacascadeofgenerate-and-testalgo-rithmsarousesdeeprevulsioninmanyotherwisequiteinsightful,open-mindedpeople.AbsoluteIgnorance?Fieonanybodywhowouldthusput‘A’and‘I’together!Serendipityisthewellspringofevolution,soitisfit-tingthatanevolutionistsuchasIshouldadaptMacKenzie’shappycapitalisationforapurposehecouldhardlyhaveimagined.Hisout-ragedscoffingatthepowersofAbsoluteIgnorancehasanuncannilysimilarechomorethanacenturylaterintheequallyoutragedscoff-ingatthosewhobelieveinwhatJohnSearle4hascalled‘strongAI’,thethesisthatrealintelligencecanbemadebyartifice,thatthedifferencebetweenamindlessmechanismandamindfuloneisadifferenceofdesign(orprogramme–sincewhateveryoucandesigninhardwareyoucanimplementinavirtualmachinethathasthesamecompetence).5Darwin’s‘strangeinversionofreasoning’turnsanancientideaupside-down.The‘top-down’perspectiveoncreativeintelligencesupposesthatitalwaystakesabig,fancy,smartthingtocreatealesserthing.Nohorseshoehasevermadeablacksmith;nopothasfashionedapotter.Hencewe–andalltheotherfancythingsweseearoundus–musthavebeencreatedbysomethingstillfancier,some-thinglikeusonlymoreso.Tomany–perhapsmost–people,thisideaisjustobvious.Considerthispagefromacreationistpropagandamailing:CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nInDarwin’swake,whereamI?3951.Doyouknowofanybuildingthatdidn’thaveabuilder?YES/NO2.Doyouknowofanypaintingthatdidn’thaveapainter?YES/NO3.Doyouknowofanycarthatdidn’thaveamaker?YES/NOIfyouanswered‘YES’foranyoftheabovegivedetails:Buthoweverstronglytheideaappealstocommonsense,Darwinshowsushowitcanbe,inaword,false.Darwinshowsusthatabottom-uptheoryofcreationis,indeed,notonlyimaginablebutempiricallydemonstrable.AbsoluteIgnoranceisfullyqualifiedtotaketheplaceofAbsoluteWisdominalltheachievementsofcreativeskill–allofthem.JohnSearle’sChineseRoomthoughtexperimentisavariationonthedesperatejokeofthecreationists:DoyouknowofanymachinethatcanunderstandChinese?YES/NOIfyouanswered‘YES’givedetails!Whilethecreationists’rhetoricalquestionsmerelygesturetowardsthepresumedembarrassmentsfacinganybodywhotriesto‘givede-tails’ofaninstanceofbottom-upcreation,Searle’schallengeoffersasurveyofpossibleavenuesthebelieversinstrongAImighttakeintheirattemptsto‘givedetails’andpurportstorebutthemoneandall.ThebelieversinstrongAIhavebeenremarkablyunmovedbySearle’sattemptsatrefutation,andthecomparisonofSearle’sposi-tionwithcreationismshowswhy.Biologistswhocannotyetexplainsomeparticularpuzzleaboutthenon-miraculouspaththatledtoonemarvelofnatureoranother,whocannotyet‘givedetails’tosatisfytheparticularcritic,neverthelesshavesuchafinetrackrecordofsuc-cessingivingthedetails,andsuchastableandfecundbackgroundtheorytouseingeneratingandconfirmingnewdetails,thattheysimplydismisstherhetoricalimplication:‘You’llneversucceed!’Theycalmlyacknowledgethattheymayneedtodevelopafewnewwrinklesbeforetheycandeclarevictory.BelieversinstrongAIaresimilarlycontenttoconcedethatallAImodelstodatehavebeendeficientinmanyrespects,ordersofmagnitudetoosimple,manyofthempursuingparticularvisionsofAIthataresimplymistaken.TheygoontonotethatSearleisn’tchallengingparticulardetailsofCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n396danielc.dennetttheattemptstodate;hepurportstobeofferinganargumentfortheinprincipleimpossibilityofstrongAI,aconclusionthatheinsistsismeanttocoverallimaginablecomplicationsoftheunderlyingtheoreticalframework.Theyknowthattheirunderlyingtheoreticalframeworkisnothingotherthanthestraightforwardextension,intothehumanbrainandallitsperipheraldevicesandinterfaces,oftheDarwinianprogrammeofmindlessmechanismdoing,intheend,allthework.IfDarwinianmechanismscanexplaintheexistenceofaskylark,inallitsglory,theycansurelyexplaintheexistenceofanodetoanightingale,too.6Apoemisawonderfulthing,butnotclearlymorewonderfulthanaliving,singingskylark.Unsupportableantipathiesoftensurvivethankstoprotectivecolouration:theyblendintothebackgroundoflegitimateobjec-tionstooverstatementsoftheviewunderattack.SincethereachofDarwinianenthusiasmhasalwaysexceededitsgrasp,therearealwaysgoodcriticismsofDarwinianexcessestohideamongst.Like-wise,ofcourse,fortheexcessesoftheideologuesofAI.Andsothebattlerages,generatingasmuchsuspicionasinsight.Darwinianswhoaresurethataproperlynuanced,sophisticatedDarwinismisproofagainstalltheobjectionsandmisgivings–Iamonesuch–shouldneverthelessrecallthefateoftheFreudiannagsofthe1950sand1960s,whoinsistedonseeingeverythingthroughtheperspec-tiveoftheirhero’scategories,onlytodiscoverthatbythetimeyou’veattenuatedyourFreudianismtoaccommodateeverything,itisPickwickianFreudianismmostoftheway.Sometimesacigarisjustacigar,andsometimesanideaisjustanidea–notameme–andsometimesabitofmentalmachineryisnotusefullyinterpretedasanadaptationdatingbacktoourancestralhunter-gathererdaysorlongbefore,eventhoughitis,obviously,descended(withmod-ifications)fromsomecombinationorotherofsuchadaptations.WeDarwinianswilltrytoremindourselvesofthis,hopingourdoughtyopponentswillcometorecognisethataDarwiniantheoryofcreativityisnotjustapromisingsolutionbuttheonlysolutioninsighttoaproblemthatiseverybody’sproblem:howcananarrange-mentofahundredbillionmindlessneuronscomposeacreativemind,anI?WilliamPoundstonehasputtheinescapablechallengesuccinctlyintermsof‘theoldfantasyofamonkeytypingHamletbyacci-dent’.Hecalculatesthatthechancesofthishappeningare‘1in50multipliedbyitself150,000times’.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nInDarwin’swake,whereamI?397Inviewofthis,itmayseemremarkablethatanythingascomplexasatextofHamletexists.TheobservationthatHamletwaswrittenbyShakespeareandnotsomerandomagencyonlytransferstheproblem.Shakespeare,likeeverythingelseintheworld,musthavearisen(ultimately)fromahomoge-neousearlyuniverse.AnywayyoulookatitHamletisaproductofthatprimevalchaos.7Wheredoesallthatdesigncomefrom?Whatprocessescouldconceiv-ablyyieldsuchimprobable‘achievementsofcreativeskill’?WhatDarwinsawisthatdesignisalwaysbothvaluableandcostly.Itdoesnotfalllikemannafromheaven,butmustbeaccumulatedthehardway,bytime-consuming,energy-consumingprocessesofmindlesssearchthrough‘primevalchaos’,automaticallypreservinghappyac-cidentswhentheyoccur.ThisbroadbandprocessofResearchandDevelopmentisbreathtakinglyinefficient,but–thisisDarwin’sgreatinsight–ifthecostlyfruitsofRandDcanbethriftilycon-served,copiedandre-used,theycanbeaccumulatedovertimetoyield‘theachievementsofcreativeskill’.‘Thisprincipleofpreser-vation’,Darwinsays,‘Ihavecalled,forthesakeofbrevity,NaturalSelection.’8ThereisnorequirementinDarwin’svisionthattheseRandDpro-cessesruneverywhereandalwaysatthesametempo,withthesame(in-)efficiency.Considertheunimaginablyhugemulti-dimensionalspaceofallpossibledesignedthings–bothnaturalandartificial.Everyimaginablewhaleandunicorn,everyautomobileandspace-shipandrobot,everypoemandmathematicalproofandsymphonyfindsitsplacesomewhereinthisDesignSpace.Ifwethinkofde-signworkorRandDasasortofliftinginDesignSpace,9thenwecanseethatthegradualistic,frequentlyback-sliding,maximallyin-efficientbasicsearchprocesscanonimportantoccasionsyieldnewconditionsthatspeeduptheprocess,permittingfaster,moreeffec-tivelocallifting.10CallanysuchproductofearlierRandDacrane,anddistinguishitfromwhatDarwinismsaysdoesnothappen:sky-hooks.11Skyhooks,likemannafromheaven,wouldbemiracles,andifwepositaskyhookanywhereinour‘explanation’ofcreativity,wehaveinfactconcededdefeat–‘Thenamiracleoccurs.’12What,then,isamind?TheDarwiniananswerisstraightforward.Amindisacrane,amechanismofnotquiteunimaginablecom-plexitythatcanclamberthroughDesignSpaceatagiddy–butnotmiraculouslygiddy–pace,thankstoalltheearlierRandD,fromCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n398danielc.dennettallsources,thatitexploits.Whatistheanti-Darwiniananswer?Itisperfectlyexpressedbyoneofthetwentiethcentury’sgreatcreativegeniuses(though,likeMacKenzie,heprobablydidn’tmeanbyhiswordswhatIintendtomeanbythem):Jenecherchepas;jetrouve.PabloPicassoPicassopurportstobeageniusindeed,someonewhodoesnotneedtoengageinthemenialworkoftrialanderror,generate-and-test,RandD;heclaimstobeabletoleaptothesummitsofthepeaks–theexcellentdesigns–inthevastreachesofDesignSpacewithouthavingtoguidehistrajectory(hesearchesnot)bysidelongtestingatanywaystations.Asaninspiredbitofbragging,thisisnonpareil,butIdon’tbelieveitforaminute.AndanyonewhohasstrolledthroughanexhibitofPicassodrawings(asIrecentlydidinValencia)lookingatliterallydozensofvariationsonasingletheme,allsigned–andsold–bytheartist,willappreciatethatwhateverPicassomayhavemeantbyhisbonmot,hecouldnottrulyclaimthathedidn’tengageinatime-consuming,energy-consumingexplorationofneighbourhoodsinDesignSpace.Atbesthecouldclaimthathisownsearchesweresoadvanced,soefficient,thatitdidn’tseem–tohimself–tobedesignworkatall.Butthenwhatdidhehavewithinhimthatmadehimsuchagreatdesigner?Askyhook,orasuperbcollectionofcranes?13WecannowcharacteriseamutualsuspicionbetweenDarwiniansandanti-Darwinianswhichdistortstheempiricalinvestigationofcreativity.Darwinianssuspecttheiropponentsofhankeringafteraskyhook,amiraculousgiftofgeniuswhosepowershavenodecom-positionintomechanicaloperations,howevercomplexandinformedbyearlierprocessesofRandD.Anti-Darwinianssuspecttheirop-ponentsofhankeringafteranaccountofcreativeprocessesthatsodiminishestheFinder,theAuthor,theCreator,thatitdisappears,atbestameretemporarylocusofmindlessdifferentialreplication.Wecanmakealittleprogress,Ithink,bybuildingonPoundstone’sexampleofthecreationofthecreatorofHamlet.Consider,then,alittlethoughtexperiment.SupposeDrFrankensteindesignsandconstructsamonster,Spakesheare,thatthereuponsitsupandwritesoutaplay,Spamlet.MyquestionisnotabouttheauthorofWaverleybutabouttheauthorofSpamlet.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nInDarwin’swake,whereamI?399WhoistheauthorofSpamlet?First,let’stakenoteofwhatIclaimtobeirrelevantinthisthoughtexperiment.Ihaven’tsaidwhetherSpakesheareisarobot,con-structedoutofmetalandsiliconchips,or,liketheoriginalFranken-stein’smonster,constructedoutofhumantissues–orcells,orpro-teins,oraminoacids,orcarbonatoms.AslongasthedesignworkandtheconstructionwerecarriedoutbyDrFrankenstein,itmakesnodifferencetotheexamplewhatthematerialsare.Itmightwellturnoutthattheonlywaytobuildarobotsmallenoughandfastenoughandenergy-efficientenoughtositonastoolandtypeoutaplayistoconstructitfromartificialcellsfilledwithbeautifullycraftedmotorproteinsandothercarbon-basednanorobots.Thatisaninterestingtechnicalandscientificquestion,butnotofconcernhere.Forexactlythesamereason,ifSpakesheareisametal-and-siliconrobot,itmaybeallowedtobelargerthanagalaxy,ifthat’swhatittakestogettherequisitecomplicationintoitsprogramme–andwe’lljusthavetorepealthespeedlimitforlightforthesakeofourthoughtexperiment.Thesetechnicalconstraintsarecommonlydeclaredtobeoff-limitsinthesethoughtexperiments,sosobeit.IfDrFrankensteinchoosestomakehisAIrobotoutofproteinsandthelike,that’shisbusiness.Ifhisrobotiscross-fertilewithnormalhumanbeingsandhencecapableofcreatingwhatisarguablyanewspeciesbygivingbirthtoachild,thatisfascinating,butwhatwewillbeconcernedwithisSpakesheare’spurportedbrainchild,Spamlet.Backtoourquestion:WhoistheauthorofSpamlet?Inordertogetagriponthisquestion,wehavetolookinsideandseewhathappensinSpakesheare.14Atoneextreme,wefindinsideafile(ifSpakesheareisarobotwithacomputermemory)orabasicallymemorisedversionofSpamlet,allloadedandreadytorun.Insuchanextremecase,DrFrankensteinissurelytheauthorofSpamlet,15usinghisintermediatecreation,Spakesheare,asamerestorage-and-deliverydevice,aparticularlyfancywordprocessor.AlltheRandDworkwasdoneearlier,andcopiedtoSpakeshearebyonemeansoranother.Wecanvisualisethismoreclearlybyimaginingasub-spaceofDesignSpace,whichIcalltheLibraryofBabel,afterJorgeLuisBorges’classicshortstorybythatname.16BorgesinvitesustoimagineawarehousefilledwithbookswhichappearstoitsinhabitantstobeCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n400danielc.dennettinfinite;theyeventuallydecidethatitisnot,butitmightaswellbe,foritseemsthatonitsshelves–innoorder,alas–lieallthepossiblebooks.Supposethateachbookis500pageslong,andeachpageconsistsof40linesof50spaces,sothereare2,000character-spacesperpage.Eachspaceiseitherblank,orhasacharacterprintedonit,chosenfromasetof100(theupper-andlower-caselettersofEnglishandotherEuropeanlanguages,plustheblankandpunctuationmarks).17SomewhereintheLibraryofBabelisavolumeconsistingentirelyofblankpages,andanothervolumeisallquestionmarks,butthevastmajorityconsistoftypographicalgibberish;norulesofspellingorgrammar,tosaynothingofsense,prohibittheinclusionofavolume.Fivehundredpagestimestwothousandcharactersperpagegivesamillioncharacter-spacesperbook,sothereare1001,000,000booksintheLibraryofBabel.Sinceitisestimatedthatthereareonly10040(giveortakeafew)particles(protons,neutronsandelectrons)intheregionoftheuniversewecanobserve,18theLibraryofBabelisnotremotelyaphysicallypossibleobject,butthankstothestrictruleswithwhichBorgesconstructeditinhisimagination,wecanthinkaboutitclearly.Weneedsometermsforthequantitiesinvolved.TheLibraryofBabelisnotinfinite,sothechanceoffindinganythinginterestinginitisnotliterallyinfinitesimal.19Thesewordsexaggerateinafa-miliarway,butweshouldavoidthem.Unfortunately,allthestan-dardmetaphors–astronomicallylarge,aneedleinahaystack,adropintheocean–fallcomicallyshort.Noactualastronomicalquan-tity(suchasthenumberofelementaryparticlesintheuniverse,orthetimesincetheBigBangmeasuredinnanoseconds)isevenvisibleagainstthebackdropofthesehuge-but-finitenumbers.IfareadablevolumeintheLibrarywereaseasytofindasaparticulardropintheocean,we’dbeinbusiness!DroppedatrandomintotheLibrary,yourchanceofeverencounteringavolumewithsomuchasagrammat-icalsentenceinitissovanishinglysmallthatwemightdowelltocapitalisetheterm–Vanishinglysmall–andgiveitamate,Vastly,shortforVery-much-more-than-astronomically.20Itisamusingtoreflectonjusthowlargethisfinitesetofpossiblebooksis,comparedwithanyactuallibrary.Mostofthebooksarepuregibberish,asnoted,soconsidertheVanishingsubsetofbookscomposedentirelyofEnglishwords,withoutasinglemisspelling.ItCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nInDarwin’swake,whereamI?401isitselfaVastset,ofcourse,andcontainedwithinit,butVanishinglyhardtofind,istheVastsubsetwhoseEnglishwordsarelinedupingrammaticalsentences.AVastbutVanishingsubsetofthissubsetinturnisthesubsetofbookscomposedofEnglishsentencesthatactuallymakesense.AVastbutVanishingsubsetoftheseareaboutsomebodynamedJohn,andaVastbutVanishingsubsetoftheseareaboutthedeathofJohnF.Kennedy.AVastbutVanishingsubsetofthesearetrue...andaVastbutVanishingsubsetofthepossibletruebooksaboutthedeathofJFKarewrittenentirelyinlimericks.TherearemanyordersofmagnitudemorepossibletruebooksinlimerickformaboutthedeathofJFKthantherearebooksintheLibraryofCongress.Nowwearereadytoreturntothatneedle-in-a-haystack,Spamlet,andconsiderhowthetrajectorytothisparticularplaceintheLibraryofBabelwastraversedinactualhistory.Ifwefindthatthewholejour-neywasalreadycompletedbythetimeSpakesheare’smemorywasconstructedandfilledwithinformation,weknowthatSpakesheareplayednoroleatallinthesearch.Workingbackwards,ifwefindthatSpakesheare’sonlyrolewasrunningthestoredtextthroughaspell-checkerbeforeusingittoguideitstypingmotions,wewillbeunimpressedbyclaimsofSpakeshearianauthorship.Thisisamea-surable,butVanishing,partofthetotalRandD.Thereisasizeablegalaxyofnear-twintextsofSpamlet–roughlyahundredmilliondif-ferentminormutantshavebutasingleuncorrectedtypointhem,andifweexpandourhorizontoincludeonetypoperpage,wehavebeguntoenterthelandofVastnumbersofvariationsonthetheme.Work-ingbackalittlefurther,oncewegraduatefromtypostothinkos,21thosearguablymistaken,orsub-optimallychosen,words,wehavebeguntoenterthelandofseriousauthorship,ascontrastedwithmerecopy-editing.Therelativetrivialityofcopy-editing,andyetitsunignorableimportanceinshapingthefinalproduct,getswellrepre-sentedintermsofourmetaphorofDesignSpace,whereeverylittlebitofliftingcountsforsomething,andsometimesalittlebitoflift-ingmovesyouontoawholenewtrajectory.Asusual,wemayquoteLudwigMiesvanderRoheatthisjuncture:‘Godisinthedetails.’Nowlet’sturntheknobsonourthoughtexperiment,asDouglasHofstadterhasrecommended,22andlookattheotherextreme,inwhichDrFrankensteinleavesmostoftheworktoSpakesheare.ThemostrealisticscenariowouldsurelybethatSpakeshearehasbeenCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n402danielc.dennettequippedbyDrFrankensteinwithavirtualpast,alifetimestockofpseudo-memoriesofexperiencesonwhichtodrawwhilerespondingtoitsFrankenstein-installedobsessivedesiretowriteaplay.Amongthosepseudo-memories,wemaysuppose,aremanyeveningsatthetheatre,orreadingbooks,butalsosomeunrequitedloves,someshockingclosecalls,someshamefulbetrayalsandthelike.Nowwhathappens?Perhapssomescrapofa‘humaninterest’storyonthenetworknewswillbethecatalystthatspursSpakesheareintoafrenzyofgenerate-and-test,ransackingitsmemoryforusefultitbitsandthemes,transforming–transposing,morphing–whatitfinds,jigglingthepiecesintotemporary,hopefulstructuresthatcompeteforcompletion,mostofthemdismantledbythecorrosiveprocessesofcriticismthatneverthelessexposeusefulbitsnowandthen,andsoforth,andallofthismulti-levelledsearchwouldbesomewhatguidedbymulti-level,internallygeneratedevaluations,includingevaluationoftheevaluation...oftheevaluationfunctionsasaresponsetoevaluationof...theproductsoftheongoingsearches.23NowiftheamazingDrFrankensteinhadactuallyanticipatedallthisactivitydowntoitsfinestgrainatthemostturbulentandchaoticlevel,andhadhand-designedSpakesheare’svirtualpast,andallitssearchmachinery,toyieldjustthisproduct,Spamlet,thenDrFrankensteinwouldbe,onceagain,theauthorofSpamlet,butalso,inaword,God.SuchVastforeknowledgewouldbesimplymiraculous.Restoringasmidgenofrealismtoourfantasy,wecansettheknobsataratherlessextremepositionandassumethatDr.Frankensteinwasunabletoforeseeallthisindetail,butratherdelegatedtoSpakeshearemostofthehardworkofcompletingthetrajectoryinDesignSpacetooneliteraryworkoranother,somethingtobedeterminedbylaterRandDoccurringwithinSpakesheareit-self.Wehavenowarrived,bythissimpleturnoftheknob,intheneighbourhoodofrealityitself,forwealreadyhaveactualexamplesofimpressiveartificialAuthorswhoVastlyoutstriptheforesightoftheirowncreators.Nobodyhasyetcreatedanartificialplaywrightworthseriousattention,butanartificialchessplayer–IBM’sDeepBlue–andanartificialcomposer–DavidCope’sEMI–havebothachievedresultsthatare,insomerespects,equaltothebestthathumancreativegeniuscanmuster.WhobeatGarryKasparov,thereigningWorldChessChampion?NotMurrayCampbelloranyofhisIBMteam.DeepBluebeatCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nInDarwin’swake,whereamI?403Kasparov.DeepBluedesignsbetterchessgamesthananyofthemcandesign.NoneofthemcanauthorawinninggameagainstKasparov.DeepBluecan.Yes,but.Yes,but.IamsuremanyofyouaretemptedtoinsistatthispointthatwhenDeepBluebeatsKasparovatchess,itsbruteforcesearchmethodsareentirelyunliketheexploratoryprocessesthatKasparovuseswhenheconjuresuphischessmoves.Butthatissimplynotso–oratleastitisnotsointheonlywaythatcouldmakeadifferencetothecontextofthisdebateabouttheuniversalityoftheDarwinianperspectiveoncreativity.Kasparov’sbrainismadeoforganicmaterials,andhasanarchitectureimpor-tantlyunlikethatofDeepBlue,butitisstill,sofarasweknow,amassivelyparallelsearchenginewhichhasbuiltup,overtime,anoutstandingarrayofheuristicpruningtechniquesthatkeepitfromwastingtimeonunlikelybranches.Thereisnodoubtthattheinvest-mentinRandDhasadifferentprofileinthetwocases;Kasparovhasmethodsofextractinggooddesignprinciplesfrompastgames,sothathecanrecognise,andknowenoughtoignore,hugeportionsofthegamespacethatDeepBluemuststillpatientlycanvassseriatim.Kasparov’s‘insight’dramaticallychangestheshapeofthesearchheengagesin,butitdoesnotconstitute‘anentirelydiffer-ent’meansofcreation.WheneverDeepBlue’sexhaustivesearchescloseoffatypeofavenuethatithassomemeansofrecognising(adifficult,butnotimpossibletask),itcanre-usethatRandDwhen-everitisappropriate,justasKasparovdoes.MuchofthisanalyticalworkhasbeendoneforDeepBluebyitsdesigners,andgivenasaninnateendowment,butKasparovhaslikewisebenefitedfromhun-dredsofthousandsofperson-yearsofchessexplorationtransmittedtohimbyplayers,coachesandbooks.ItisinterestinginthisregardtocontemplatethesuggestionrecentlymadebyBobbyFischer,whoproposestorestorethegameofchesstoitsintendedrationalpuritybyrequiringthatthemajorpiecesberandomlyplacedinthebackrowatthestartofeachgame(random,butmirrorimageforblackandwhite).Thiswouldinstantlyrenderthemountainofmemorisedopeningsalmostentirelyobsolete,forhumansandmachinesalike,sinceonlyrarelywouldanyofthislorecomeintoplay.Onewouldbethrownbackontoarelianceonfundamentalprinciples;onewouldhavetodomoreoftheharddesignworkinrealtime–withtheclockrunning.Itisfarfromclearwhetherthischangeinruleswouldben-efithumanbeingsmorethancomputers.ItalldependsonwhichCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n404danielc.dennetttypeofchessplayerisrelyingmostheavilyonwhatis,ineffect,rotememory–reliancewithminimalcomprehensionontheRandDofearlierexplorers.ThefactisthatthesearchspaceforchessistoobigforevenDeepBluetoexploreexhaustivelyinrealtime,so,likeKasparov,itprunesitssearchtreesbytakingcalculatedrisks,and,likeKasparov,itoftengetstheseriskspre-calculated.Bothpresumablydomassiveamountsof‘bruteforce’computationontheirverydifferentarchitectures.Afterall,whatdoneuronsknowaboutchess?Anyworktheydomustbebruteforceworkofonesortoranother.ItmayseemthatIambeggingthequestioninfavourofacomputa-tional,AIapproachbydescribingtheworkdonebyKasparov’sbraininthisway,buttheworkhastobedonesomehow,andnootherwayofgettingtheworkdonehaseverbeenarticulated.Itwon’tdotosaythatKasparovuses‘insight’or‘intuition’sincethatjustmeansthatKasparovhimselfhasnoprivilegedaccess,noinsight,intohowthegoodresultscometohim.So,sincenobodyknowshowKasparov’sbraindoesit–leastofallKasparov–thereisnotyetanyevidenceatalltosupporttheclaimthatKasparov’smeansare‘entirelyunlike’themeansexploitedbyDeepBlue.Oneshouldrememberthiswhentemptedtoinsistthat‘ofcourse’Kasparov’smethodsarehugelydif-ferent.Whatonearthcouldprovokeonetogooutonalimblikethat?Wishfulthinking?Fear?Butthat’sjustchess,yousay,notart.Chessistrivialcomparedtoart(nowthattheworldchampionchessplayerisacomputer).ThisiswhereDavidCope’sEMIcomesintoplay.24Copesetouttocreateamereefficiency-enhancer,acomposer’saidtohelphimovertheblockadesofcompositionanycreatorconfronts,ahigh-techextensionofthetraditionalsearchvehicles(thepiano,stavepaper,thetaperecorderandsoon).AsEMIgrewincompetence,itpro-moteditselfintoawholecomposer,incorporatingmoreandmoreofthegenerate-and-testprocess.WhenEMIisfedmusicbyBach,itrespondsbygeneratingmusicalcompositionsinthestyleofBach.WhengivenMozart,orSchubert,orPuccini,orScottJoplin,itreadilyanalysestheirstylesandcomposesnewmusicintheirstyles,bet-terpastichesthanCopehimself–oralmostanyhumancomposer–cancompose.Whenfedmusicbytwocomposers,itcanpromptlycomposepiecesthateerilyunitetheirstyles,andwhenfed,allatonce(withnoclearingofthepalate,youmightsay)allthesestylesCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nInDarwin’swake,whereamI?405atonce,itproceedstowritemusicbasedonthetotalityofitsmu-sicalexperience.Thecompositionsthatresultcanthenalsobefedbackintoit,overandoveragain,alongwithwhateverothermu-siccomesalonginMIDIformat,andtheresultisEMI’sown‘per-sonal’musicalstyle,astylethatcandidlyrevealsitsdebtstothemasters,whilebeinganunquestionablyidiosyncraticintegrationofallthis‘experience’.EMIcannowcomposenotjusttwo-partinven-tionsandartsongsbutwholesymphonies–andhascomposedoverathousand,whenlastIheard.Theyaregoodenoughtofoolexperts(composersandprofessorsofmusic)andIcanpersonallyattesttothefactthatanEMI-Pucciniariabroughtalumptomythroat–butthen,I’monahairtriggerwhenitcomestoPuccini,andthiswasagoodenoughimitationtofoolme.DavidCopecannomoreclaimtobethecomposerofEMI’ssymphoniesandmotetsandartsongsthanMurrayCampbellcanclaimtohavebeatenKasparovinchess.ToaDarwinian,thisnewelementinthecascadeofcranesissim-plythelatestinalonghistory,andweshouldrecognisethattheboundarybetweenauthorsandtheirartefactsshouldbejustaspen-etrableasalltheotherboundariesinthecascade.WhenRichardDawkinsnotesthatthebeaver’sdamisasmuchapartofthebeaverphenotype–itsextendedphenotype–asitsteethanditsfur,hesetsthestageforthefurtherobservationthattheboundariesofahumanauthorareexactlyasamenabletoextension.25Infact,ofcourse,we’veknownthisforcenturies,andhavecarpenteredvarioussemi-stableconventionsfordealingwiththeproductsofRubens,ofRubens’studio,ofRubens’variousstudents.Wherevertherecanbeahelpinghand,wecanraisethequestionofjustwhoishelpingwhom,whatiscreatorandwhatiscreation.Howshouldwedealwithsuchquestions?Totheextentthatanti-Darwinianssimplywantustopreservesometraditionofauthorship,tohavesomerulesofthumbfordeterminingwhoorwhatshallreceivethehonour(orblame)thatattendsauthorship,theirdesirescanbeacknowledgedandmet,onewayoranother(whichdoesn’tnecessarilymeanweshouldmeetthem).Totheextentthatthisisnotenoughfortheanti-Darwinians,totheextentthattheywanttoholdoutforauthorsasanobjective,metaphysicallygrounded,‘naturalkind’(oh,theironyinthoseessentialistwolf-wordsinnaturalistsheep’sclothing!),theyarelook-ingforaskyhook.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n406danielc.dennettTherenunciationofskyhooksis,Ithink,thedeepestandmostimportantlegacyofDarwininphilosophy,andithasahugedomainofinfluence,extendingfarbeyondtheskirmishesofevolutionaryepistemologyandevolutionaryethics.IfwecommitourselvestoDarwin’s‘strangeinversionofreasoning’,weturnourbacksoncom-pellingideasthathavebeencentraltothephilosophicaltraditionforcenturies,notjustAristotle’sessentialismandirreducibletelos,butalsoDescartes’rescogitansasacauseroutsidethemechanis-ticworld,tonamethethreethathadbeenmostirresistibleuntilDarwincamealong.Thesirensongsofthesecompellingtraditionsstillmovemanyphilosopherswhohavenotyetseenfittoexecutetheinversion,sadtosay.Clingingtotheirpre-Darwinianassump-tions,theycreateproblemsforthemselvesthatwillnodoubtoc-cupymanyphilosophersforyearstocome.26Thethemesallcon-vergewhenthetopiciscreativityandauthorship,wheretheurgeistohuntforan‘essence’ofcreativity,an‘intrinsic’sourceofmean-ingandpurpose,alocusofresponsibilitysomehowinsulatedfromthecausalfabricinwhichitisembedded,sothatwithinitsbound-ariesitcangenerate,fromitsowngenius,itsirreduciblegenius,themeaningfulwordsanddeedsthatdistinguishussosharplyfrommeremechanisms.27Platocalledforustocarvenatureatitsjoints,awonderfulbio-logicalimage,andDarwinshowedusthatthesalientboundariesinthebiospherearenotthecrispset-theoreticboundariesofessential-ism,buttheemergenteffectsofhistoricalprocesses.Asonespeciesturnsintotwo,thenarrowisthmusofintermediatesdisappearsastimepasses,leavingislands,concentrationssharingfamilyresem-blances,surroundedbyemptyspace.AsDarwinnoted(insomewhatdifferentterms),therearefeedbackprocessesthatenhancesepara-tion,activelydepopulatingthismiddleground.Wemightexpectthesamesortofeffectsinthesphereofhumanmindandculture,cul-turalhabitsorpracticesthatfavourtheisolationoftheprocessesofartisticcreationinasinglemind.‘Areyoutheauthorofthis?’‘Isthisallyourownwork?’Themerefactthatthesearefamiliarques-tionsshowsthatthereareculturalpressuresencouragingpeopletomakethefavouredanswerscometrue.Asmallchild,crayoninhand,huddledoverherdrawing,slapsawaythehelpinghandofparentorsibling,becauseshewantsthistobeherdrawing.Shealreadyappre-ciatesthenormofprideofauthorship,aculturallyimbuedbiasbuiltCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nInDarwin’swake,whereamI?407onthepalimpsestofterritorialityandbiologicalownership.Theveryideaofbeinganartistshapesherconsiderationofopportunitiesonoffer,shapesherevaluationoffeaturesshediscoversinherself.AndthisinturnwillstronglyinfluencethewaysheconductsherownsearchesthroughDesignSpace,inherlargelyunconsciousemula-tionofPicasso’sideal,or,ifsheisofacontrarianspirit,defyingit,likeMarcelDuchamp:Cabanne:Whatdeterminedyourchoiceofreadymades?Duchamp:Thatdependedontheobject.Ingeneral,Ihadtobewareofits‘look’.It’sverydifficulttochooseanobject,because,attheendoffifteendays,youbegintolikeitortohateit.Youhavetoapproachsomethingwithanindifference,asifyouhadnoaestheticemotion.Thechoiceofreadymadesisalwaysbasedonvisualindifferenceand,atthesametime,onthetotalabsenceofgoodorbadtaste...28Thereisapersistentproblemofimaginationmanagementinthede-batessurroundingthisissue:peopleonbothsideshaveatendencytounderestimatetheresourcesofDarwinism,imaginingsimplisticalternativesthatdonotexhaustthespaceofpossibilities.Darwini-ansarenotoriouslyquicktofind(orinvent)differencesingeneticfitnesstogowitheverydifferencetheyobserve,forinstance.Mean-while,anti-Darwinians,notingthehugedistancebetweenabeehiveandtheStMatthewPassionascreatedobjects,areapttosupposethatanybodywhoproposestoexplainbothcreativeprocesseswithasinglesetofprinciplesmustbeguiltyofonereductionistfantasyoranother:‘Bachhadageneforwritingbaroquecounterpointjustlikethebees’geneforformingwaxhexagons’or‘Bachwasjustamindlesstrial-and-errormutatorandselectorofthemusicalmemesthatalreadyflourishedinhisculturalenvironment.’Bothofthesealternativesarenonsense,ofcourse,butpointingouttheirflawsdoesnothingtosupporttheideathat(‘therefore’)theremustbeirre-duciblynon-DarwinianprinciplesatworkinanyaccountofBach’screativity.Inplaceofthisdimlyimaginedchasm,with‘Darwinianphenomena’ononesideand‘non-Darwinianphenomena’ontheotherside,weneedtolearntoseethespacebetweenbeeandBachaspopulatedwithallmannerofmixedcases,differingfromtheirnear-estneighboursinbarelyperceptibleways,replacingthechasmwithatraversablegradientofnon-minds,protominds,hemi-demi-semiminds,magpieminds,copycatminds,apingminds,clever-pasticheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n408danielc.dennettminds,‘path-finding’minds,‘ground-breaking’minds,andeventu-ally,geniusminds.Andtheindividualminds,ofeachcalibre,willthemselvesbecomposedofdifferentsortsofparts,including,surely,somespecial-purpose‘modules’adaptedtovariousnewtricksandtasks,aswellasacascadeofhigher-orderreflectiondevices,capa-bleofgeneratingevermorerarefiedanddelimitedsearchesthroughpre-selectedregionsoftheVastspaceofpossibledesigns.Itisimportanttorecognisethatgeniusisitselfaproductofnat-uralselectionandinvolvesgenerate-and-testproceduresallthewaydown.Onceyouhavesuchaproduct,itisoftennolongerparticularlyperspicuoustoviewitsolelyasacascadeofgenerate-and-testpro-cesses.Itoftenmakesgoodsensetoleapaheadonanarrativecourse,thinkingoftheagentasaself,withavarietyofprojects,goals,pre-suppositions,hopes...Inshort,itoftenmakesgoodsensetoadopttheintentionalstancetowardsthewholecomplexproductofevo-lutionaryprocesses.Thiseffectivelybracketsthelargelyunknownandunknowablemechanicalmicroprocessesaswellasthehistorythatsetthemup,andputsthemoutoffocuswhilehighlightingthepatternsofrationalactivitythatthosemechanicalmicroprocessestracksoclosely.Thistacticmakesespeciallygoodsensetothecre-atorhimselforherself,whomustlearnnottobeoppressedbytherevelationthatoncloseinspection,evenoncloseintrospection,ageniusdissolvesintoapackrat,whichdissolvesinturnintoacol-lectionoftrial-and-errorprocessesoverwhichnobodyhasultimatecontrol.Doesthisrealisationamounttoaloss–anelimination–ofself-hood,ofgenius,ofcreativity?Thosewhoareclosesttotheissue–theartisticandscientificgeniuseswhohavereflectedonit–oftenconfrontthisdiscoverywithequanimity.Mozartisreputedtohavesaidofhisbestmusicalideas:‘Whenceandhowdotheycome?Idon’tknowandIhavenothingtodowithit.’29ThepainterPhilipGustonisequallyunperturbedbythisevaporationofvisibleselfwhenthecreativejuicesstartflowing:WhenIfirstcomeintothestudiotowork,thereisthisnoisycrowdwhichfollowsmethere;itincludesalloftheimportantpaintersinhistory,allofmycontemporaries,alltheartcritics,etc.AsIbecomeinvolvedinthework,onebyone,theyallleave.IfI’mlucky,everyoneofthemwilldisappear.IfI’mreallylucky,Iwilltoo.30CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nInDarwin’swake,whereamI?409Inclosing,Iwouldliketoacknowledgeafewofmyco-authors:AnonymousJorgeLuisBorgesDavidCopeCharlesDarwinRichardDawkinsSusanDennettReneDescartes´MarcelDuchampThomasEdisonBobbyFischerPhilipGustonDouglasHofstadterNicholasHumphreyRobertMacKenzieTonyMarcelVictoriaMcGeerLudwigMiesvanderRohePabloPicassoWilliamPoundstoneJohnSearleWilliamShakespeareMaryShelleyPaulValery´notesThisessayappearedinProceedingsandAddressesoftheAmericanPhilo-sophicalAssociationvol.75,no.2(November2001),andisreprintedbypermissionoftheAssociation.1.Valery´1973–4,ii,1388.2.Dennett1984,13.3.MacKenzie1868.4.Searle1980.5.Thisisobviouslytrueofallcompetencesofinformation-processingorcontrol,butnotofproductiveortransformativeprocesses,suchaslactation,whichrequiresthetransportandassemblyofparticularmate-rials.SinceSearlepurportstodistinguishthebrain’s‘controlpowers’fromCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n410danielc.dennettits‘bottom-upcausalpowers’that‘produceintentionality’,somehavethoughtSearleimaginesintentionalitytobeaspecialsortofsubstancesecretedbythebrain.Sincehedeniesthis,heowesussomeotherwaytodistinguishthesemysteriouscausalpowersfromthecontrolpowersthatsoftwarecanimplementandanexplanationofwhytheyarenotimplementableinavirtualmachine.6.Thisperspectivehelpstoexplainthevisceralappealtomanyonlook-ersofthevariousapparentalternativestoDarwinianmechanismthathaveflourishedovertheyears.Themostprominentrecentlyhavebeentheappealto‘self-organization’‘ontheedgeofchaos’(StuartKauffman,PerBak,andothers),and‘dynamicalsystemstheory’inbothevolutionandcognition(EstherThelen,WalterFreeman,TimothyvanGelderandothers),and,ofcourse,StephenJayGould’sinsistencethatevolutionisnot,asIhaveclaimed(buildingontheworkoftheoristsfromDarwintoFisherandHaldanetoWilliamsandMaynardSmith),fundamentallyanalgorithmicprocess.Afterthesmokeofbattleclears,theseideascanbereadilyseentobe,atbest,interestingcomplicationsofthebasicDar-winianmechanisms,justasconnectionistarchitecturesandembodiedcognitionmodelsareinterestingcomplicationsofthebasicideasofAI.Thesecontroversiesare,atbest,constructivedisagreementsoverhowto‘givethedetails’,notchallengestothebasicDarwinianvision.SeeGayon,thisvolume,forfurtherdiscussion.7.Poundstone1985,23.8.C.Darwin[1859]1964,127–ch.4summary.9.Thistacticofmappingevolutionaryprocessesandresultsontospaceisanaturalandoft-usedmetaphor,exploitedinmodelsofhill-climbingandpeaksinadaptivelandscapes,tonamethemostobviousandpopularapplications.Itsnaturalnessdoesnotguaranteeitssoundness,ofcourse,andmayevenmaskitslimitations,butsincethebasicmappingstrategyhasprovedtobeparticularlyusefulinexpressingcriticismsofover-simpleevolutionaryideas(e.g.,Kauffman’s‘ruggedlandscape’,Eigen’s‘quasi-species’),itisnotobviouslybiasedinfavourofsimplisticvisionsofDarwinism.10.MaynardSmithandSzathmary1995identifyeightoccasions(majortransitions)whentheevolutionaryprocessbecamemoreefficient,cre-atingcranes.11.Dennett1995,73–80.12.SeethefamouscartoonbySydneyHarris,inwhichthephysicist’sblack-boardiscoveredwithimpressiveformulae,exceptforthisbracketedphraseinthemiddle,whichleadstheonlookerscientisttosay‘Ithinkyoushouldbemoreexplicithereinsteptwo’(reprintedinDennett1991,38).CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nInDarwin’swake,whereamI?41113.IhavebeenunabletodiscoverthesourceofPicasso’sclaim,whichisnicelybalancedbyabetter-knownremarkbyamoredown-to-earthcreativegenius,ThomasEdison:‘Geniusisonepercent.inspirationandninety-ninepercent.perspiration’(inanewspaperinterviewin1932,accordingtotheOxfordDictionaryofQuotations).14.Yes,Iintendthehomagetoanoldfavouriteofmine,WhatHappensinHamlet,byJ.DoverWilson(1951).15.UnlesswefindthereisaMsShelleywhoistheauthorofDrFranken-stein!16.InBorges1962.17.Borgeschoseslightlydifferentfigures:books410pageslong,with40linesof80characters.Thetotalnumberofcharactersperbookiscloseenoughtomine(1,312,000versus1,000,000)tomakenodifference.Ichosemyroundernumbersforeaseofhandling.Borgeschoseacharactersetwithonly25members,whichisenoughforupper-caseSpanish(withablank,acommaandaperiodastheonlypunctuation),butnotforEnglish.Ichosethemorecommodious100tomakeroomwithoutanydoubtfortheupper-andlower-caselettersandpunctuationofalltheRomanalphabetlanguages.18.StephenHawkinginsistsonputtingitthisway:‘Therearesomethingliketenmillionmillionmillionmillionmillionmillionmillionmillionmillionmillionmillionmillionmillion(1witheightyzeroesafterit)particlesintheregionoftheuniversethatwecanobserve.’Hawking1988,129.MichaelDenton(1985)providestheestimateof1070atomsintheobservableuniverse.ManfredEigen(1992,10)calculatesthevolumeoftheuniverseas1084cubiccentimetres.19.TheLibraryofBabelisfinite,but,curiouslyenough,itcontainsallthegrammaticalsentencesofEnglishwithinitswalls.Butthat’saninfiniteset,andthelibraryisfinite!Still,anysentenceofEnglish,ofwhateverlength,canbebrokendowninto500-pagechunks,eachofwhichissomewhereinthelibrary!Howisthispossible?Somebooksmaygetusedmorethanonce.Themostprofligatecaseistheeasiesttounderstand:sincetherearevolumeswhicheachcontainasinglecharacterandareotherwiseblank,repeateduseoftheseonehundredvolumeswillcreateanytextofanylength.AsQuine(1987)pointsout,inhisinformativeandamusingessay,‘UniversalLibrary’,ifyouavailyourselfofthisstrategyofre-usingvolumes,andtranslateeverythingintotheASCIIcodeyourword-processoruses,youcanstorethewholeLibraryofBabelintwoextremelyslendervolumes,inoneofwhichisprinteda0andintheotherofwhichappearsa1!(QuinealsopointsoutthatTheodorFechner,thepsychologist,propoundedthefantasyoftheuniversallibrarylongbeforeBorges.)CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n412danielc.dennett20.Quinecoinstheterm‘hyperastronomic’forthesamepurpose.SeeQuine1987.Theprevioustwoparagraphsaredrawn,withminorchanges,fromDennett1995,108–9.21.Formoreonthisconcept,seeDennett2005.22.Hofstadter’s‘Reflections[onSearle]’,inHofstadterandDennett1981.23.Shakespearehimselfwas,ofcourse,atirelessexploiterofthedesignworkofothers,andmaywellhavebeenpokingfunathisownrepu-tation,quotingacritic,whenhehadAutolycusdescribehimselfas‘asnapper-upofunconsideredtrifles’inTheWinter’sTale(Activ,sceneiii).ThankstoTonyMarcelfordrawingthispassagetomyattention.24.Forthedetails,seeCopeandHofstadter2001,includingmycommen-tary,‘CollisionDetection,Muselot,andScribble:SomeReflectionsonCreativity’.25.Dawkins1982.26.Threeexamples:JerryFodor’sseriesofflawedtheoriesofpsychoseman-tics;JohnSearle’sinabilitytoaccountforhow‘intrinsicintentionality’couldevolvewhenithasno‘controlpower’consequencesvisibletoselectivepressure;JohnMcDowell’squestforanon-Darwinianalterna-tivetowhathecalls‘baldnaturalism’,astruggletosecureavarietyofnormativitythatisnotthemereas-ifnormativityhefindsdiscernibleinevolution.SeeDennett1995,1996and1993formyanalysesofFodor’sandSearle’sdifficulties.MydiscussionofMcDowellmustbedeferredtoanotheroccasion.27.SeeDennett1998formyanalysisofthisthemeinFredDretske’ssearchforaprivilegedplacewheretheunderstandinghappens.28.Cabanne1971,48.ThankstoNicholasHumphreyandVictoriaMcGeerforideasexpressedinthepreviousparagraph.29.Inanoft-quotedbutpossiblyspuriouspassage–seeDennett1995,346–7.30.IhavebeenunabletolocatethesourceofGuston’squote,butIhavefoundmuchthesameremarkattributedtothecomposerJohnCage,aclosefriendandcontemporaryofGuston’s,who(issaidtohave)saidthisaboutpainting:Whenyouareworking,everybodyisinyourstudio–thepast,yourfriends,theartworld,andaboveall,yourownideas–allarethere.Butasyoucontinuepainting,theystartleaving,onebyone,andyouareleftcompletelyalone.Then,ifyouarelucky,evenyouleave.Likeallothercreators,GustonandIliketore-usewhatwefind,addingafewtouchesfromtimetotime.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nowenflanagan17Ethicalexpressions:whymoralistsscowl,frownandsmileidarwinismandthemanifestimageofhumankindAmajortaskforphilosophyistoadjudicateconflictsbetweenourordinarywayofunderstandingpersonsandtheworld–whatWilfridSellarscalledthe‘manifestimage’–andscientificaccountsofper-sonsandtheworld–the‘scientificimage’.Sometimes,ofcourse,itispossibletoblendthetwoimagessoastoproduceagenuinelystereoscopicorsyntheticpicture.Butthisisnotalwayspossible.InthecaseofDarwin’stheoryofnaturalselection,weseemtohaveascientifictheorythatcannotbecomfortablyassimilatedintotheextantmanifestimagebyadding,inSellars’phrase,a‘needlepointofdetail’tothatimage.1Astraditionallyunderstood,wehumansaremadeinGod’sim-ageandsitbeneathGodandtheangelsandabovetheanimalsonthe‘GreatChainofBeing’.2ThereisatripartiteontologyofPureSpirit(s)(Godandangels),purematter(rocks,plantsandanimals),anddualisticbeingswho,whileonearth,partakeofboththeim-materialrealmandthematerialrealm(us).Wehumansknowthematerialrealmthroughoursensesandreason,andtheimmaterialrealm–theologicalandmoraltruthsinparticular–throughillu-mination,graceorothernon-empiricalandnonrationalorarationalmeans.Godsetsoutthemorallaw,andifweobeyit,therebyusingourfreewillproperly,wewillgaineternalsalvation.Nothinginthismetaphysics,epistemologyandethicsseemstosquarewiththetheoryofnaturalselection.Onthistheory,nodivine,intelligentdesignerisneededtoexplaintheexistenceofhumansoranyothertypeoforganiclife.Moreover,asanimals,descendedfrom413CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n414owenflanaganotheranimals,wehumanspossessnomysteriousepistemicpowerstodetectwhatistrueorwhatisgood.Theideathatmoralityhasadivineoriginandjustificationlosesitsforce.Theprospectsforpersonalimmortalityseemnil.ThemanifestimageofhumankindthustakesamajorhitatthehandsofDarwin’stheory,anditisnotclearhowtomaintainsensiblythecentralcomponentsofthatimage.DanielDennettinparticularhaspressedhomethispoint,tellingusthatDarwin’stheoryisakintoa‘universalacid’,eatingthrougheverythingittouches–and,forDennett,ittouchesvirtuallyeverythinghuman.ButDennettshouldnotbemisunderstoodhere.Hedoesnotmeanthateverythinghumancanbeexplainedbythetheoryofnaturalselection.Heisnopan-adaptationist,believingallhumantraitstobefitness-enhancingadaptations.Rather,DennettsometimesusesDarwin’stheoryinastrictway,toexplainhowcer-tainhumantraitsarosethroughthenaturalselectionofgeneticallybasedvariation,andothertimesisengagedinanalogicalextensionofthetheory,treatingitasaparadigmcaseofhownaturalphe-nomenacanbeexplainedbyappealtocausalprocesseshavingaselection-likeform.ThisdistinctionbetweenstrictDarwinismandDarwinismbyanalogy,oftenoverlooked,iscrucialtounderstandingwhatDarwinismcanoffertophilosophy,andespeciallytoethics–thesubjectofthischapter.AcloserlookatthisdistinctionwillhelpclarifywhatisatstakeinattemptstoDarwiniseethics.iistrictdarwinismanddarwinismbyanalogyStrictlyspeaking,naturalselectionoperates(wenowknow)whengeneticvariationisthemajorcausalcontributortovariationincer-taintraits,andwhenvariationinthesetraitsenhancesordetractsfromfitnessinaparticularenvironment.Traitsriseinfrequencyiftheyareheritableandiftheyenableorganismstobemorereproduc-tivelysuccessfulthanaverage.Mostsuchtraitsareadaptations.TheprimaryaimofmodernDarwiniantheoryistoexplainadaptationsbyreferencetopopulationgenetics.Thisisimportant,andsetsastrongstandardforwhenanexplanationisstrictlyDarwinian.3Manytraitsthataremodifiedovertimeandreachacertainfre-quencyorstabilityinhumanpopulations–literacy,religiouscom-mitments,proficiencyatphysicsorthetango–aretheresultsoflargelynon-biologicalcauses.Furthermore,thefactthatsomeCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nEthicalexpressions415non-biologicalcausalprocesseshavestructuralsimilaritiestonat-uralselectiondoesnotmeanthattheireffectsfallintheexplana-torydomainofDarwin’stheory.TherearemanyprocessesthatareanalogoustonaturalselectioninthatthereiswhatthepsychologistB.F.Skinnercalled‘selectionbyconsequences’.Becomingagoodchess,bridge,soccerortennisplayerhasnointerestingrelationtoDarwinianfitness.Butbecominggoodatagamedoesinvolvegradualmodificationovertimeinatest-retestsituation.Asalternatestrate-giesaredevelopedandtested,thosewithnegativeconsequences(losing)aredispensedwith,whilethosewithpositiveconsequences(winning)areretainedandbuiltupon.Thephenomenonofselectionbyconsequencesisubiquitous,butneedn’tbeDarwinianinthestrictsense.4Thesimplereasonisthattheconsequencesthataffectthedevelopment,modification,transmissionandspreadoftraitsthusestablishedarenotnecessarilyreproductivesuccessorincreasedin-clusivegeneticfitness.PhilipKitcherhasrightlybeenaconsistentcriticofwhathecalls‘hyper-Darwinism’,theviewthatDarwin’stheorycanresolvevir-tuallyallscientificandphilosophicalquestionsabouthumanlifeandmind.TherangeofDarwin’stheoryextendsonlyasfarastraitswhoseevolutionisgovernedbyforcesofnaturalselection.Incaseswhereforcesofculturalselectionareinvolved,itsexplanatorypowerwanes.ThuswhenKitchercitesDonaldCampbell’sevolutionaryepistemologyandRichardDawkins’theoryofmemeticselectiongoverningsociallearning,heindicates,butIthinknotforcefullyenough,thatthesetheoriesareDarwinianinvirtueofemphasisingcertainstructuralanalogiesofindividualandsociallearningwiththewaynaturalselectionoperates.Theyaremereanaloguesofnaturalselection,becausetheyshowhowideascanbelearned,modifiedorfixedinapopulationindependentlyoftheeffectstheyhaveonfit-nessenhancement.Norarethetraitsinquestionheritable–asinequanonofstrictDarwinianexplanation.5Iftheproponentsof‘evolutionaryethics’wereresolutelycare-fulaboutdistinguishing(a)claimsabouthowmoralnormsorprac-ticespromoteDarwinianfitness,from(b)claimsaboutnormsorpracticeschangingovertime–‘evolving’inthepopularandmis-leadingsense–inaselection-likemanner,myhunchisthatKitcherwouldbelessscepticalaboutthecontributionevolutionarythinkingmightmaketometaethicsand,tosomeextent,tothejustificationCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n416owenflanaganofcertainnormativeethicaljudgements.Sofarasnormsorpracticesselectedinvirtueoftheirconsequencesare‘adaptive’,theyareadap-tiveinasenseunconnectedwithnumberofoffspringorchanginggenefrequencies.6SuchfastidiousnessaboutwhatcountsasagenuinelyDarwinianphenomenonandasagenuinelyDarwinianprocessisusefulinread-ingRosenberg’sandDennett’scontributionstothisvolume.Rosen-berginsiststhattrueDarwinianswillbecommittedtoaformofnaturalismaccordingtowhichthey‘looktothetheoryofnaturalselectionasaprimaryresourceincomingtosolvephilosophicalproblemsraisedbyhumanaffairs’.Thenhetellsusthat‘thesocialandbehaviouralsciencesmayinthefuturehavemoretotellusabouthumanitythanDarwiniantheory,butthesetheoriesdonotasyethaveanythinglikethedegreeofconfirmationofDarwin’stheory’.Thefirstclaimsoundsasifitinsiststhatweshouldseekexplanationsofhumannatureandsociallifeintermsofthefitness-enhancingfeaturesofthetraitswedisplay.Butthesecondclaimisthatfeaturesotherthanfitness-enhancementmaybeshowntobecrucialcausalcontributorsto‘humanaffairs’oncetheotherhumansciencesmatureandweighin.Idon’tshareRosenberg’sassessmentoftheimmaturityoftheotherhumansciences,soIthinkwealreadyknowthatthemostlikelyexplanationsofcertainwidespreadhumantraitsdonotturnprimarily–oratleastnotexclusively–ontheirfitness-enhancingrole.ArmedwiththisdistinctionbetweenstrictDarwinianexplana-tionandDarwinismbyanalogy,aswellaswithathoroughgoingcommitmenttophilosophicalnaturalism,wecannowaddresssomeofthequestionstraditionallyaskedinethics.Whatisthegenealogyofmorals,ofourbasicdispositionstolivecooperativelyandconformourbehaviourtonorms?Aretheaimsofmoralsbestexplainedasfitness-enhancingstrategies,oristheremoretomoralitythantheaimoffitnessenhancement?Aremoraljudgementsbestunderstoodcognitively,asexpressingmoraltruths,ornoncognitively,asexpress-ingemotionsandpreferences?Onthelatterview,moraljudgementsareakintohurrahingandbooingatasportingmatch.Suchverbalejaculationsareneithertruenorfalse.Theapparentconflictbetweencognitivismandnoncognitivismhaslongafflictedmodernmoralphilosophy.OneofmyaimshereistoshowhowastrictDarwinianCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nEthicalexpressions417perspectivecancreatesomeleveragetobreakthisimpasse.OurDarwinianhistoryhasbequeathedtousmoralnaturespartakingasmuchofreasonasoftheemotions.7iiiethicsashumanecologyRosenbergurgesthattheprospectsforDarwinianmetaethicsgen-erallyaremuchrosierthantheprospectsforDarwinianmorality.Herecommends,inotherwords,thatphilosophersuseDarwinianresourcestounderstandthenatureofmoraljudgements,ratherthantojustifythem,asrightortrueorgood.Anotherofmypurposesistosuggestthatthisdichotomycannotbesustained.DarwinianmetaethicsandDarwinianmoralityareinextricable.AsIconceiveit,normativeethicsispartofthescienceofecology.8Ecologyisthedisciplinethattellsuswhatconditionsleadtotheflourishingofvariousnaturalsystems(wetlands,orchids,beavers)incertainenvironments.Ethicsisecologyforhumansandothersen-tientbeings.Ethics,soconceived,isbothempiricalandnormative.Itasks:whataretheconditionsthatleadtofitnessandflourishingforhumansandothersentientbeings?9Toanswer,weneedtolookandseewhatsortsofenvironmentsleadtoflourishingandwhatsortsdon’t.Therewillbetoughcallswhenwhatconducestofitnessandflourishingcompete,aswellaswhengoodsinternaltoourconcep-tionofflourishing–loyaltyandhonesty,say–conflict.Nevertheless,therearefactsofthemattertobediscoveredaboutwhatisgoodanddesirable.EthicsthusconstruedisDarwinianinspirit,intwoways.Itisthoroughlynaturalisticinitsjudgementsoftheworthofcer-taintraits,virtues,socialpracticesandnorms.Anditappealstoselectionbyconsequencesinordertoexplainthedevelopmentandmodificationofourmoralsystems.Ethics-as-human-ecologyisnotstrictlyDarwinian,however,sinceitconcernsitselfwithmorethanDarwinianfitness.Itisconcernedwithawideraimwhich,follow-ingAristotle,Isimplycall‘flourishing’.10Flourishingmay–in-deedtypicallydoes–involvesurvivinglongenoughtoberepro-ductivelysuccessful.Butitinvolvesmorethanthis.Flourishingincludes,inthehumancase,beinghappy,contentedandvirtuous.Nevertheless,DarwinianfitnessisarguablyanecessaryconditionCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n418owenflanaganfortheachievementofmostmoralaims,undermostcircumstances.Furthermore,naturedid,Ibelieve,selectfortraits,inthestrictDarwiniansense,thatprovidecertainbasicmoralor,better,proto-moraldispositions.Iffitnessisjudgednormallytobeanecessaryconditionofachiev-ingtheotherendsthatmoralityrecommendsorsuitsusfor,thenthefactthatsometraitornormisconducivetosurvivalmayserveaspartofitsrationale,partofitsjustification.Moreover,sofarascertaindis-positions,selectedforfitness-enhancingreasons,underpinourmoralsense,thesedispositionsarelegitimatelyjudgedasgoodforthisreason.GettingalmostanywherewiththislineofthinkingshouldgivepausetothosescepticalaboutwhetherDarwin’stheorycanmakeacontributiontonormativeethics.Alongtheselines,Iwillargueherethatsomeofourbasicproto-moraldispositions,fixedinusbynaturalselection,maybejudgedgood–thatis,worthyofre-finementanddevelopmentinwayssuitedtoprofitableinterpersonalrelationsinparticularenvironments.Theseproto-moraldispositionsprovideafoundationfortheinstitutionofmorality.ivhumannatureWithreason,emotionsandtheoriginsofmoralityinoursights,itisinstructivetocompareDarwin’sowncontributiontoethicalthink-ingwiththatofanothergreatmoralist,ThomasHobbes.DennettcallsHobbes‘thefirstsociobiologist’because‘hesawthattherehadtobeastorytobetoldabouthowthestatecametobecreated,andhowitbroughtwithitsomethingaltogethernewonthefaceoftheearth:morality’.11AccordingtoHobbes’‘justso’storytherewasatime–oratleasttherewouldhavebeensuchatimehaditnotbeenutterlyimprudentforHomosapienstorevealtheirtruecolours–whenpureself-interestreigned.Everyegoforitself.Reason,how-ever,quicklysurmisedthatgoingwiththeflowofnaturalimpulseswouldimpede,ifnotoutrightdefeat,individualself-interest.Moral-itywasinvented.TheHobbesianstorythusmakesquickworkofthetransitionfromaworldofpsychologicalegoiststoaworldofprudentialmoralists.Darwin’sstoryoftheoriginofmoralitydiffersfromHobbes’intwoimportantrespects.12First,DarwinismoreofaHumeanthanCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nEthicalexpressions419aHobbesian.Ifweareegoists,then,forHumeasforDarwin,weareegoistswithfellow-feeling.Wecareaboutthewealandwoeof,atleast,someothers.Second–andthisfollowsfromthefirstpoint–moralitywasnot‘somethingaltogethernewonthefaceoftheearth’atsomemomentinhumanhistory.AccordingtoDarwin,Homosapiens,presumablyliketheirextinctsocialancestors,aswellascertaincloselyrelatedspecies,suchaschimpsandbonobos,pos-sessinstinctsandemotionsthatareproto-moral;thatis,thesecrea-turespossessthegerms,atleast,ofsuchvirtuesassympathy,fidelityandcourage.InDennett’sterms,thereisno‘skyhook’beinginvokedhere.Therelevantinstinctsandemotionsdidnotemergeinamirac-ulousinstant.Theyemergedthroughnaturalselection,gradually.Weareendowedwiththeseinstinctsandfeelingsthankstoa‘craningoperation’thatbeganwithunicellularorganisms.Whatsortofcranesdidnatureequipuswithsuchthatmoralitycouldbehoistedfrombelow?HereisDarwin’sownanswer,fromtheDescentofMan(1871):Inorderthatprimevalmen,ortheape-likeprogenitorsofman,shouldhavebecomesocial,theymusthaveacquiredthesameinstinctivefeelings....Theywouldhavefeltuneasywhenseparatedfromtheircom-rades,forwhomtheywouldhavefeltsomedegreeoflove;theywouldhavewarnedeachotherofdanger,andhavegivenmutualaidinattackordefence.Allthisimpliessomedegreeofsympathy,fidelity,andcourage....Theloveofapprobationandthedreadofinfamy,aswellasthebestowalofpraiseorblame,areprimarilydue...totheinstinctofsympathy;andthisinstinctnodoubtwasoriginallyacquired,likealltheothersocialin-stincts,throughnaturalselection....Withincreasedexperienceandreason,manperceivesthemoreremoteconsequencesofhisactions,andtheself-regardingvirtues,suchastemperance,chastity,&c.,whichduringearliertimesare...utterlydisregarded,cometobehighlyesteemedorevenheldsacred....Ultimatelyahighlycomplexsentiment,havingitsfirstorigininthesocialinstincts,largelyguidedbytheapprobationofourfellow-men,ruledbyreason,self-interest,andinlatertimesbydeepreligiousfeelings,confirmedbyinstructionandhabit,allcombined,constituteourmoralsenseorconscience.13MostphilosophersprefertheHumean–DarwinianpictureofhumannaturetoHobbes’‘redintoothandclaw’picture.OnemightthinkthisisbecausetheHumean–DarwinianpictureismoreflatteringCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n420owenflanaganthantheHobbesianone.Butevenifthispartlyexplainstheattrac-tion,theHumean–Darwinianpictureneverthelesshasscienceonitsside.Non-humanprimatesdo,infact,seemtodisplayasocialside,aconvivialside,quitenaturally.Furthermore,wecanexplainthissocialityintermsofthetheoryofnaturalselection.Individualspossessedofatleastamodicumoffellow-feelingwilldobetteratdat-ing,matingandchild-rearing–thekeyingredientsofreproductivesuccess–thanindividualswhoignoretheirconspecificsorseethemonlyasmeanstotheirownends.AnadditionaladvantageoftheHumean–Darwinianviewisthatittiesmoralitytosomethingmorethanmereprudence.14Oursocialinstinctsandproto-moralemo-tionsaretherefromthestart,andthusmoralityhasonitsagenda,fromtheverybeginning,concernforthewelfareof(some)others,aswellasforoneself.Hobbes’storyreallydoesinvolvetheinven-tionofmoralityassomethingtotallynewonthefaceoftheearth.Homosapiensmoveswithinthelifetimeofthespeciesfromastateofamoralitytooneofmorality.ButDarwin’sstory,asonemightexpect,isgradualist.Humans,thankslargelytothepossessionofacognitive-conativeeconomythatwaspassedonfromancestors,havemoralor,atleast,proto-moraldispositionsfromthestart.Further-more,thesedispositionsareadjustableduringone’slifetime.Socialinsects,notbeingconscious,organisesociallifewithoutfeelingorthought.Mostmammalsseemtoorganisetheirsocialliveswithandthroughfeelings,selfish-feelingsandfellow-feelings.Inthecaseofprimates,theroleofemotionsinsocialorganisationisespeciallyconspicuous.ButtheHumean–Darwinianstoryapparentlyhasaseriousdown-side;namely,ittiesmoralitytoocloselytotheemotions.ManyofthesamephilosopherswhopreferthecheerierHumean–DarwinianpictureofhumannaturetotheHobbesianpicturewillsaythat,evenifHobbeswaswrongaboutwhatwearelikedeepdown,atleasthesawthatmoralityhastodowithreason.Darwin,inthequotationabove,appearstoagree:sympathy,experience,reason,instruction,andhabitareallinvolvedinthedevelopmentofourmoralsense.Hume,ofcourse,thoughtthesame.ButwhatHumeandDarwinshareinadditiontoasimilartakeonhumannatureistheviewthattheemotionsareessentialtomoralityevenwhenexperience,habit,andreasonenterthepicture.ForHume,andpossiblyforDarwinaswell,moralreasonworkswithandthroughtheemotions.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nEthicalexpressions421vbasicemotionsandthereactiveattitudesThequotationfromDarwinintheprevioussectioncontainsallthegermsofasensibletheory.Wehumansaresocialanimalsconcernedinthefirstinstancewithourownfitnessandthatofourconspecifics.Weareequippedwithsomerudimentaryproto-virtues–instinctsofsympathy,fidelityandcourage–whichcanbeshapedbyexperienceandreason,andwhichregulatedsociallifelongbeforeHomosapiensgotaroundtoarticulatingmoralcodes,rulesandprinciples.Moreprecisely,ourancestorsusedtheiremotions,asexpressedphysically,thoughgestures,grimacesandgroans,tocommunicatedesiresthatcertainnormsbeobserved,andtoelicitconformitytothesenorms.Theuniversalityoftheexpressionofcertainemotionsincertaincommonlyandrepetitivelyoccurringkindsofsocialsituations–especially(butnotnecessarily,evenatthestart,exclusively)insit-uationswherefitnesswasatstake–explainswhy,whenmodernhumansexpressdesiresfornormativeconformity,theappealisuni-versal,oratleastmoreuniversalthanemotiveexpressioninrootingforfavouritesportsteams.Whatisanorm?Nothingqueerormysterious.Roughly,norms–moralones,atanyrate–expressevaluationsandmakeappealsthatcertainpracticescreating,protectingormaintainingwhatisvalu-ablebeobserved.WhenIdisplayanger,Iexpressadesirethatyoubackoff.Ifyougetthemessageyouwilldoso,andifyouaresmartyouwillcontinuetodosoinrelevantlysimilarsituations.Supposingyoudoso,younowgovernyourbehaviourbyanorm,consciouslyorunconsciously.15Soethicalexpression–evenasitmightbeimag-inedtohaveoccurredbeforeweaddedlanguagetoourexpressivearsenal–involvesemotionalexpression.Butitisnotsimplyamat-terofmyhurrahingandbooing,andtherebygettingthingsoffmychest.Iamcommunicatingwithyouaboutourinteraction.Iamaskingformore,lessorsomethingdifferent.Myexpressionshaveanepistemicdimension.MyreactionsrevealthatIlikeordon’tlikesomethingyouaredoing,orappeardisposedtodo,andIamattempt-ingtoconveyinformationabouthowI’dpreferthingstogo.InthelightofDarwin’sownargumentsinTheExpressionoftheEmotionsinManandAnimals(1872),togetherwiththeimportantworkofPaulEkmanacenturylater,itiswellestablishedthatcertainhumanemotionsandtheirexpressionsareuniversal.16Whichones?CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n422owenflanaganAccordingtoEkman,fear,anger,surprise,happiness,sadness,dis-gustandcontempt,forsure.17LetusacceptthattheseemotionsandtheirexpressionsareevolvedtraitsofHomosapiens.Theyarepartofouroriginalequipment,justaseyes,ears,nosesandheartsare.However,unlikeeyesandears,usedinthefirstinstancetopickupinformation,scowlsandsmilesareusedtoexpresshowwefeelandtoconveyinformationtoothersabouthowwewouldlikethemtobehave.PaulGriffithscallsEkman’sbasicemotions‘affectpro-grams’,whichisGriffiths’wayofmarkingtheircomplexity.Eachofthebasicemotionsinvolvesenvironmentaltriggers,whichactivateperception,whichgiverisetoinneremotionalstatesandpromptexpressionsofapprovalordisapproval.18TheDarwiniangenealogyofmoralsIamsketchingtiestheoriginofmoralityverycloselytoDarwinianfitness.Abasicemotionalex-pressioncommunicatesthewishthatothersbehaveincertainways,waysthatwillpromotethesurvivalandreproductivesuccessoftheexpressor.Itdoesn’tmatterwhetherfitnessisaconsciousaim.Itisenoughthatfitnessenhancementistheselected-foroutcome.Note,too,thatthisaccount,whileemphasisingemotions,doesnotamounttononcognitivism.Expressionsofemotionsatthesametimeexpressjudgementsaboutbetterandworsewaysofbehaving.Thismuchprovidesastarttotheprojectofmakingroomforthetruthinbothnoncognitivistandcognitivistmetaethics.Evenifethicsbeganwithfitnessenhancement,thereisnothingintheDarwinianpicturestipulatingthat,associallifedevelopedandevolved,accordingtoitsownrules,fitnessremainedthesoleaimofhumanmorallife.Darwinhimselfwasquiteclearthatcer-tainemotionsorattitudesrequiredpsychosocialdevelopment.Thustemperanceandchastitywerenot,inhisview,adaptations.Rather,theywerediscoveredtobegoodashumansgainedexperienceofso-ciallifeandbecameawareofthe‘remoterconsequences’oftheiractions.Inafamous1962paper,P.F.Strawsonproposedanaccountofwhathecalledthe‘reactiveattitudes’.Hisanalysishelpsrevealhowemotionalexpressionprovidesjusttherightsortofcranetohoistmoralityupfrombelow.Thereactiveattitudescomprisethesetofhumanresponsesthatincludeindignation,resentment,gratitude,approbation,guilt,shame,pride,hurtfeelings,feelingsofaffectionCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nEthicalexpressions423andlove,andforgiveness.Strawsonclaimedthatthereactiveat-titudesarepartofthenormalandoriginalconativerepertoireofmembersofthespeciesHomosapiens;thatthereactiveattitudesexpressnormalhumanreactionstoacts,traits,dispositionsortowholepersons;thatthenormalexpressionofthereactiveattitudesinvolvesinterpersonalrelationswherebenevolenceormalevolenceisdisplayedor,atleast,wheretheyareatstake;andthatthereac-tiveattitudesarenotonlyother-regarding,butcanbeself-regarding–guilt,say,isaformofanger–aswellasexperiencedvicariouslywhenotherssufferharm.Strawsonemphasisedthatthereactiveattitudesappearinsomeformacrossallcultures,andtheirubiquityhassomethingtodowithournatureassocialcreatures.Needlesstosay,Strawson’sreactiveattitudesarenotthesameasEkman’sbasicemotions.Strawson’slistdepictsarangeoffamiliarattitudesthatbearagooddealofculturalcolourationfromEnlightenmentthinkingand,assuch,havearichandidiosyncraticculturalcharacter,structuredandhonedbythemoralhistoryofWesternEuropeancivilisation.ItishardtoimagineourancestorsattheendofthePleistoceneexperiencingaffrontstotheirdignityorexperiencingourkindsoflove,indignation,regretandsoon.Thatsaid,Strawson’sreactiveattitudesareexcellentexamplesofattitudesbuiltonthebasicemotions,themselvesconsideredastheoriginalreactiveattitudes.vijustifyingthereactiveattitudesInatellingfootnote,Strawsoncounteredanimportantcriticismofhisanalysis.Evenifhewererightaboutthereactiveattitudes,didn’tthereremainaneedtoestablishwhetherthereactiveattitudeswererationallyjustified?Strawsonanswered:‘Comparethequestionofthejustificationofinduction.Thehumancommitmenttoinductivebelief-formationisoriginal,natural,andnon-rational(notirrational),innowaysomethingwechooseorcouldgiveup.’Theidea,Itakeit,isthatwhatgoesforinductionalsogoesforthereactiveattitudes–theyareoriginal,natural,non-rationalandnotsomethingweevercouldgiveup.Itisnotmuchofastretchtoaddapragmatist,Darwinianrider.Giventhatthereactiveattitudesareabasicfeatureofourkindofanimal,thewayinductivethinkingis,thejustificationoftheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n424owenflanaganreactiveattitudesandinductionlieswiththeirfitness-enhancingproperties.Again,itwillbeinsisted:causalexplanationsdon’tjustifyany-thing,theyonlyexplainwhyitexists.Yes,motherswhosefeelingsofaffectionleadthemtocarefortheiroffspringweremorefitthanuncaringmotherswere,andbeingquickatpickinguponregulari-tiesinnatureledtoreproductivesuccessforcreatureswiththerightequipment.Butthesefactsdonotamounttojustification.TofollowStrawson’sleadistoallow,onthecontrary,thatthesefactsareallthereistojustification.Parentalcaremakesforhappy,fitoffspring,aswellashappy-makinginteractionsbetweenparentsandoffspring.Usinginductionhassofarproducedknowledge,andknowledgeisgood,betterthanthealternative.Thesearegoodthings,andwehavereasontobehaveaccordingly.Offeringjustificationssuchasthese,andsayingwehavereasontoutilisetherelevantdispositions,evenwherethisrequiressomeeffort,andthusdoingmorethanjustwhatcomesnaturally,isnottoclaimthatparentalcareandinductionareguaranteedtoproduceinperpetuitythegoodstheyhaveyieldedsofar.Iffutureenviron-mentsarewildlydifferentfrompastorpresentones,theymaynotdoso.Nordothejustificationsrestonanyparticularfeaturesofthecausalaccountsofwhywehavetherelevanttraits.Supposethatourparentalinstinctsandinductiveabilitieswerecausedlastweekbyexposuretoapassingradioactiveasteroid,ratherthanbyDarwiniangradualism.Wemightstillcrediblyjudgetherelevanttraitsgood.Theyhelpuspickupknowledgefasterthanbefore,andournewcaringwaysleadtolongersurvival,warmcuddlyfeelingsandsoon.Thesethingsaregood.Theydojobswewantdone.IfthereactiveattitudescanbeplausiblyunderstoodasculturalsophisticationsofEkman’sbasicemotions,thenthebasicemotionsaremoralattitudestosomedegree,oratleastproto-moralones.Theirexpressionsappeartohavebeendesignedtocommunicatepositiveornegativefeelings,typicallywheresuchfeelingsareelicitedbyinter-actionswithothers,incircumstancesrelevanttosurvivalandrepro-ductivesuccess.Notethatallowingthismuchblockstheextrememoralrelativismoftenassociatedwithnoncognitivism.Murderorstealingarebadnotsolelybecausewedon’tlikethesethings,butbe-causewedon’tlikethesethingsandwantthemurderersandrobberstoceaseanddesist.OuremotionshaveanunderratedepistemicCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nEthicalexpressions425dimension.Thebasicemotionsarereliabledetectorsofmodesofinteractionthatinterfereorhavethepotentialofinterferingwithfitness.Aretheproto-moralemotionsthereforeadaptations?Itiseasytoimagineemotionssuchasangerandfearashavingcrediblelinkstofitness.Closelyrelatedspecieswiththeseemotionscommonlydisplaythemwhentheyareinphysicaldanger.Moreover,emotionssuchashappinessandsadnessmightwellsubservevarioustypesofsocialinteractionthatpromotefitness.IfIfindsexpleasantIwillmate,andIwillconveymypleasure,myhappiness,possiblymygratitude,towhomeveritisIfinditpleasanttomatewith.IfIfindplayingorbeingwithotherspleasant,Iwillbeconcerned(notnec-essarilyconsciously)thattheyfarewell.Dispositionstoexpressre-activeattitudesvicariouslymightnaturallyextendtomyoffspringormymate,aswellastoanyotherswhosecompanyIfindpleas-ant,whodomegood,orwhoIdetectareinapositiontodomegood.Likewise,assumingIhavecometocareaboutothers,eveniffortotallyselfishreasons,Iwillbedisposedtoexperienceangerto-wardsthosewhoharmthem,orseemlikelytoharmthem.PossiblyIwillactonthisanger.Primatologistsoftenspeakof‘moralisticag-gression’amongprimates,whereaggressivedisplaycanarisewhenachimporbonoboisdirectlythreatenedorwhenanotherchimpcaredaboutisthreatened.Indeed,anearlywarningsystem,withemotionsbeingdisplayedfaciallyandbodilybeforebeingactedupon,seemslikeagooddesignstrategyforcreatureswhoshould,allelsebeingequal,wishtomaketheirfeelingsanddesiresknownwith-outbeingmaimedorkilled.Theseandotherconsiderationssupporttheideathattheproto-moralemotionsareadaptationsinthestrictDarwiniansense.viiadjustableadaptationsEvenifwetakeitforgrantedthattheproto-moralemotionsorre-activeattitudescanbeplausiblydescribedasadaptations,accordingtothecriterionthatweightsmostheavilythecausalcontributionofatraittofitnessintheoriginalevolutionarysituationinwhichthetraitevolvedandproliferated,itdoesnotfollowthatthetraitisnowadaptive.Anyadaptationcanceasetobefitnessenhancingiftheenvironmentchangesenough.OurbasicreactiveattitudesmayCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n426owenflanaganwellhaveevolvedasadaptationsincloseancestorsorinus.Butas-sessingwhethertheycontinuetofunctionassuchrequiresustounderstand,betterthanwenowdo,relevantdifferencesbetweentheenvironmentstheseattitudesaroseinandtheenvironmentswenowlivein.Therearealsoquestionsconcerningthedegreeofmodifiabilityofthebasicreactiveattitudesand,assumingtheyaretosomeextentmodifiable,whethertherearereasonstomodifythem.SomemoralphilosophersregardDarwinismwarilypreciselybecausetheybelievethattraitsdeliveredbynaturalselectionareunmodifiable.Theworryisunfounded,however,solongascreaturescanlearnandsolongasthenaturaltraitsinquestionaresociallyand/orcognitivelypenetra-ble.FollowingStrawson’sarguments,therearegroundsforcautiousoptimismabouthowmodifiablethereactiveattitudesare.Ontheonehand,aswehaveseen,theyarenotsomethingwecouldchoosetogiveup.Ontheotherhand,likeourinductivestrategies,ourreac-tiveattitudescanperhapsberefinedandmodifiedthroughrationalcriticismandreflection.19Wecannotdisentangleemotionsfrommorality,norshouldwewantto.Butwecanmoderate,modifyandadjustouremotions,mak-ingthemmore‘apt’todifferentsituations,differentsocialenviron-ments,differentmoralconceptions.Theanalogywithinductionisinstructive.Supposetherewasselectioninthepastforthestraightruleofinduction:ifithasbeenobservedthatregularityRoccursmtimesoutofn,inferthatitwillcontinuetodosointhefuture.Itisafamiliarfactthatthisruleworksfairlywellinelemen-tarysituations.Butitleadsinmorecomplexsituationstoflawedreasoning.Livingatatimewhensocialgroupswererelativelysmall,conspecificswereallwellknown,andhuntingandforagingrangedoverrelativelycloseranges,ancestralhumansmightnothaveoftenconfrontedsuchcomplexsituations.Itwasonlyaftertherule’sde-ploymentovermanycenturiesthatwehumanscametodiscoverwaysinwhichtheapplicationoftheruleneededtobeconstrainedandmodified.Thereisnointerestingsenseinwhichthecanonsofinductivelogic,statisticsandprobabilitywerenaturally,asopposedtoculturally,selectedfor.Nevertheless,ifoneaimstoaccruefirmlygroundedknowledge,onehadbetterapplytherelevantcanons.Inthisnon-Darwiniansense,thecanonsareasadaptiveasliteracy.ButneitherexcellentreasoningnorhighliteracyisinterestinglyfitnessCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nEthicalexpressions427enhancing.Indeed,thebestpredictorinthemodernworldforlowbirth-rateistheaveragelevelofeducationattained,thetwohavinganinverserelation.Thepointisthatatraitcanbeadaptiveinthesensethatpossess-ingthetraitcontributestoknowledge,flourishing,happinessandthelike,butnotadaptiveinthesensethatitpromotesinclusivegeneticfitness.Thesameappliesinthemoralcase.Someofthereactiveattitudes,especiallythoseonStrawson’slist,requiredevelopment,discoveryandcanonisationoversomesegmentofworld-historicaltime.Feelingsofpride,dignity,andrespectfitthisdescription,asdoDarwin’sownexamplesoftemperanceandchastity.Theyrequire,atleastaswenowunderstandtheseconcepts,developmentofacer-tainconceptionofaperson,ofnormsgoverningbehaviour,do’sanddon’ts,oughts,institutionsgoverningmoralpraiseandblame,andmethodsforpunishmentofthosewhostraytoofarfromtherightpath.Analogously,inductionismadesophisticatedthroughcumu-lative,communaldiscussionsofpastinductivepractices.Inductionisnotaladderweclimbandthenpushaway,andneitherarethemoralemotions.Ourmoralemotionsareinextricablefromourval-uesandourallegiances.Atnopointinmoraldevelopmentdothemoralemotionsebbaway.Butdoesn’tmoralityinvolveknowingthatoneoughttodoone’sdutyevenwhenonedoesn’tfeellikeit?Well,yes.Therightwaytothinkaboutsuchcases,however,isbyunderstandingthemascaseswherewehavelearnedtovalue,tocareaboutcertainthingsthatarenotaltogethereasytocareaboutorfollowthroughon.Thefactremainsthatcaringaboutdoingourdutyamountstobeingemotion-allyengagedandinvestedindoingourduty.And,formorality’ssake,ithadbetterbe;otherwisewewon’tdotherightthing.viiihowflourishing‘fits’inTosaythatthebasicreactiveattitudesareoriginalandnatural–andadaptationstoboot–isnottosaythattheyevolvedinHomosapiens.Itispossiblethattheseattitudes,muchintheformwearenaturallydisposedtodisplaythem,weredeliveredbygenesequencesthatbelongedtoandevolvedinearliergroupsofhominidsoreveninsomenon-hominidancestors.Thisprospectraisesthepossibilitythat,asourbrains,bodiesandsocialstructuresdiffersomuchfromCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n428owenflanaganthoseofourevolutionaryancestors,itmightnotbeoptimaltohaveinheritedemotionalequipmentmuchthesameastheirs.Likethetinkeringwiththepanda’swristbonethatproducedthepanda’ssub-optimalthumb,directtransmissionofthereactiveattitudesofearlyhominidsmayhavebeenthebestnaturalselectioncoulddounderthecircumstancesthatbroughtHomosapiensonthescene,withoutbeingoptimalineithertheoriginalevolutionarysituationorinthechangedcircumstancesoflater,especiallycultured,environmentswhichhumanswouldcreateandinhabit.20Thispossibility,basedonknowingthetwinfactsthatanadapta-tioncanceasetobefitnessenhancingifandwhenanenvironmentchangesenoughandthatMotherNatureoftensatisficesevenwhenitcomestoadaptivedesigns,makesmehesitanttoassertwholeheart-edlythatouroriginalandnaturalreactiveattitudesarestilladaptive,evenifwerestrictthemeaningof‘adaptive’tofitnessenhancing.Tospeakwithconfidenceonthismatter,weneedtoknowaboutthestandardintensity,ifthereissuchathing,ofthebasicreactiveatti-tudes.Howstrongorweakweretheyintheoriginalsettings?Wewillalsowanttoknowwhatsortsofsituationsgenerallyelicitedtheseattitudes.Sayingthattheywereelicitedbybenevolenceandmalev-olenceamountstolittleuntilweknowwhatsortsofthingswereperceivedasbenevolentormalevolent.Wecanmakesomeplausibleeducatedguesseshere.Butmuchinformationismissing,cruciallyabouttheinfluenceofculture,forweknowthatdifferentculturesconceiveofbenevolenceandmalevolencesomewhatdifferently.Despitethesegapsinourknowledge,thereareneverthelessgroundsforsupposingthat,incurrentenvironments,especiallywithcertaintechnologiesatourdisposal,weneedtobewaryofcertainoftheoriginalandnaturalreactiveattitudes.Expressionsofangerinanenvironmentfilledwithgunsare,allelsebeingequal,moredangerousthaninaworldinwhichthestandardexpressionscanonlygoasfarasfistsandsticks.Manypeopleworry,rightly,thatwillingnesstofightamutuallycatastrophicnuclearwariscausedinpartbythefacelessnessoftheenemy.Duetoourevolutionarylegacies,itseemsweareattunedtofeelemotions,ofcompassionaswellasofanger,inresponsetofaces,butnotinresponsetolargechunksoflandonmaps.Conversely,masscommunicationgivesfacetosuffering.WeseestarvingchildrenhalfwayacrosstheglobeandCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nEthicalexpressions429are,atleastsometimes,movedtohelp.Sotheverdictismixedastowhether,intheworldasweknowit,ourreactiveattitudesarewellsuited,howeverwellsuitedtheymayhavebeenintheoriginalevolutionarycontext,fordoingthejobtheyweredesignedtodo.Wecananswerwithmoreconfidencethequestionofwhetherthebasicreactiveattitudesaremodifiable.Theevidencefortheirmodifiabilityabounds.Contemporarymoraleducationalpracticesaimatandsometimessucceedinmoderatingwhatarejudgedtobeexcessivelyangrydisplays.Benevolentdispositionscanbedevelopedandenhanced,althoughitisavariablematterhowhardwetrytodoso.Differentcultures,differentmoralcommunitiesworkindifferentwaystoincreaseordecreaseguilt,andsoon.Theaimsofmoralitygobeyondsettingdownnormsthatenhanceorprotectfitness,however.Wealsoaimtolivehappy,high-qualitylives,toflourishinwaysthathavevirtuallynothing(atleastdirectly)todowithfitness.Thisiswhereelaboratemoralsystemscomeintotheirown.Allovertheworld,ideasaboutwhatitistobeagoodpersonandtoliveamorallifehavebeendevelopedandarticulated.EverywisdomliteratureIamfamiliarwith–whethertheTorah,theOldandNewTestaments,Confucius’Analects,thePuranasandtheBhagavadGita,theKoran,Buddhisttexts,orsecularmoralwritingsfromthelikesofAristotle,MillandKant–offersallsortsofadviceabouthowweoughttostructureourcognitive-conativeeconomies,howbesttolivealife,whatvirtuesarethebestexpressionsofourcommonhumanityandwhichfeelingsandvicesweneedtobemostwatchfulofandreadytofightoff.Itseemstomethateachoftheseliteratures,despitesometimesdisplayingparochial,xenophobic,sex-istandracistattitudes,doesidentifyproblemswithlivingourlivessolelyaccordingtoourbiologicalnatures,andprovidesconsiderablewisdom,eachinitsownway,forbeingbetterthatwearenaturallypronetobe.ThereisabsolutelynothinginDarwinismthatsaysthathumans,asevolvedrational-emotionalbeings,can’tordon’tac-quireaimsthatgobeyondfitness.WhatIcall‘flourishing’isonesuchaim.Homosapiensevolvedascreatureswithfellow-feelingaswellaswithastrongselfishstreak.Longbeforewespoke,muchlessengagedinexplicitethicalreflectionorwroteethicaltreatises,ourbasicemo-tions,ourreactiveattitudesusedthevehicleofourfaces(aswellasCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n430owenflanaganotherformsofbodylanguage)toexpressandcommunicateournor-mativepreferences.Inthefirstinstance,thesenormativepreferencesrevolvedalmostexclusivelyaroundissuespertinenttofitness.Withculture,experience,learningandreason,humanscametounder-standthe‘moreremoteconsequences’oftheiractionsandtoseethemeritsofabidingbymorecomplexnorms.Thosenormsinvolveddelayedgratification.Theyinculcatedcomplexvirtues,promotingthedevelopmentofstabletraitsofcharacter.Wecanspeakhere,per-haps,ofanextendedmoralphenotype,enhancingDarwinianfitnessbutnotjustDarwinianfitness;forbythistime,humanssawcertainprospectsforflourishing–forlivingwellevenifnotforlong.21Forallthis,therehasneverbeenavirtueproposedoramoralprincipleespousedthatdidnotappealtoouremotionsorutiliseournatureasemotionalbeings.Thepictureofamoralitythattranscendsorover-comestheemotionsisnotDarwin’s.Wearenotbuiltinawaythatallowssuchtranscendenceorovercoming.Wecan,ofcourse,throughculture,reasonandexperiencelearntomoderate,modify,adjustandamplifyourbasicreactiveattitudesinwaysthatenhancebothfitnessandflourishing.Furthermore,wecanoftengivereasonsastowhysuchadjustmentsaredesirable.But–andthisisthemainpoint–wedon’t,inmoraldevelopment,eitherphylogeneticallyorontogenetically,climboutofthebasicemotions,asiftheywereacaveorcocoon,fromwhichwethenescapeordropoff.Wearethinking-feelingcreaturesallthewayup.Ifindoubt,justlookatpeople’sfaceswhenthecategoricalimperativeortheprincipleofutilityisviolated.ixtowardsadarwinianunderstandingofthegoodlifeThetraditionalpictureofthenatureandfunctionofmoralityascon-tainedinthemanifestimage,asendorsedandrefinedbyperennialphilosophy,needstobereplaced.Darwin’stheoryofnaturalselec-tionholdspromiseaspartofthereplacementview,sofarasnat-uralselectionprovidedushumanswithsomebasicequipmentfornegotiatingsocialenvironments.Somemechanismsforsocialcoop-erationandcoordinationmightbepartoftheoriginalequipment.Oneplacetolookfortherelevanttraitsordispositionsisinourproto-moralemotions,ourprimitivereactiveattitudes.And,indeed,CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nEthicalexpressions431recentscientificworksupportstheviewthattherearecertainuni-versalbasicemotionsandexpressions.Thebasicemotionsarecom-plexmechanismsthatinvolvefeelings(thisistheirnoncognitivecomponent),butthatalso,asexpressedfacially,bodilyand,eventu-ally,inwordsandcomplexmoralcodes,communicatejudgementsabouthowhumansperceivecertainbehaviours,motivesandstatesofaffairs.WhenIglareatyouforcontemplatingstealingmystashofroots,Iamconveying(a)thatIdon’twantyoutodoso–andthusIamtryingtobringyourbehaviourundernormativecontrol–and(b)Iamconveyingajudgementthatifyouproceedeitherorbothofuswillbeworseoff.If(b)istrue,thenmycommuniqueistrue,ifnotit´isfalse.Ontheviewsketchedhere,evenastheicemeltedattheendofthePleistocene,humanswereengagingincommunicationaboutthevalueordisvalueofcertainstatesofaffairsrelativetocertainends.Thesestatements,judgements,expressions–callthemwhatyouwill–eitherdescribedthingstrulyorfalsely.Whetherwejudgesomeinnateorlearneddispositiontobegooddependsonhowwejudgethewayittypicallyfunctionsinthecom-plexecologyofhumanlife.Itisacommonplaceofmostmoralcodesthatcompassionandangerareaptfeelingsdependingonthesit-uation.Weworkhardtoenhanceandexpandcompassion,largelybecauseweseefewwaysinwhichitcancauseanythingbutgood.Withanger,however,weworkhardtoreinitin.Why?Becauseweseedangersaboundingifwedon’t,especiallyifwecreateenviron-mentsinwhichitisencouragedandgrows.So,rightfromthestart,wearepositionedtomakejudgementsaboutwhichnaturaltraitstogrowandenrichandwhichonestomoderateand,possibly,tosuppress.Suchjudgementsaremadefromtheincreasinglysophisti-catedperspectivesoflifeinworlds,inecologicalniches,whereweaimtoachievemultiple,heterogeneousends.Thereisnothingille-gitimateinsayingofsomeproto-moraltraitthatitisgoodbecauseitisanadaptation,promotingfitness,rarelycausingharm,andalmostalwaysgreasingthegearsonwhichhappyandhealthycommunallifeturns.Suchajudgementdoesnotinvolvemakingthemistakeofsayingthatthetraitisgoodsimplybecauseitisanadaptation,simplybecauseitisfitnessenhancing.Judgementsofgoodnessarenormallyall-things-consideredjudgements.Fellow-feelingis,bymylights,abasicreactiveattitudethatdeservesthissortofverdict.Itisanunmitigatedgood.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n432owenflanagannotes1.Sellars1963,1.Foranin-depthanalysisoftheconflictbetweenthemanifestandscientificimages,seeFlanagan2002.2.SeeLovejoy1936.3.Certainfitness-enhancingtraitsorpracticesarenotDarwinianadapta-tions–not,thatis,theresultsofnaturalselection.Givinginsulintodiabeticswhowouldotherwisedieyoungisanexample.4.Skinner1966.5.RobertBrandonputsheritabilityfirstonhisfive-componentlistforgivingwhathecallsan‘ideallycompleteadaptiveexplanation’.SeeBrandon1990.Moregenerally,seethechapterbyHull,LangmanandGlenninHull2001,49–93.6.Theterm‘adaptive’isatroublemaker.Sometimesitisusedasasyn-onymfor‘adaptation’;sometimestorefertoanytraitthatincreasesreproductivesuccessregardlessofitshistoricalorigins,thatis,evenifitisaculturalinvention;andsometimestorefertoanytraitthatiswellsuitedtoachievecertainendsorgoalsinacertainenvironment.Thefirstuseisamistake.Indiscussinghumans,Iuse‘adaptive’primarilyinthethirdway,althoughthesecondsometimeshasitsuses.Forfurtherdiscussion,seeFlanagan,HardcastleandNahmias2001.7.OnDarwinismandethicsgenerally,seeRosenberg,thisvolume.8.IdevelopthisconceptionofethicsashumanecologyinFlanagan1996and2002,ch.7.9.InFlanagan2000a,Iarguethatsleepingisanadaptationwhereasdream-ingisanevolutionaryepiphenomenon,afreeriderthatcomeswithhavingaconsciousmindthatdoesn’tturnoffwhilewesleep.DreamsthereforeservenoproperDarwinianfunctionthemselves.10.SeetheNicomacheanEthicsespecially.11.Dennett1995,453–4.12.OnDarwin’sviewofmorality,seealsoRichardsandPaul,thisvolume.13.C.Darwin[1871]1981,i,161–6.14.Forsomephilosophers,moralitymustbemorethanaprudentialtheorybecause,well,thatiswhatmoralityis.Rosenberg(thisvolume)givesvoicetothiswidespreadviewevenifhedoesnotendorseithimself.Idon’tseethatwecouldcomplainifthetruthwasthatmoralitywasinfactasubsetofageneraltheoryofprudence.Theadvantageinthinkingofournatureasinvolvingpro-socialandnotmerelyprudentialatti-tudescomesnotfromthissortofconceptualdemand,originatingwithwhat‘morality’means,butfromthefactthatimputingdispositionsoffellow-feelingbestexplainstheway(s)thatthemembersofmanyrelatedspeciesinteractwiththeirconspecifics.Wecareaboutcertainothersfortheirownsake.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nEthicalexpressions43315.SeeGibbard1990andBlackburn1998.GibbardandBlackburnare‘ex-pressivists’,andemphasisetheroleoftheemotionsinmoraltheory.Theydescribetheirpositionsasnoncognitivist.Buttheyaregoodexam-ples,asIreadthem,ofphilosopherswhoworkthroughthecognitivist–noncognitivistimpasseinawaythatallowsustounderstandethicaljudgementsasincorporatingbothcognitiveandnoncognitivecompo-nents.16.Darwinhadtwodatasourcesforhisclaimthatcertainhumanemotionsareuniversal:(1)heshowedphotographsofpeoplemakingdifferentfacialexpressionstoBritishsubjectsandnotedremarkableconsistencyinjudgementsofwhatemotionalstatethesepeoplewerein;and(2)heaskedmissionariesandothersabroadtorespondtoaseriesofques-tionsaboutemotionalexpressionintheracestheyobserved.EvenifonearguesthatDarwin’sconclusionsabouttheuniversalityofcertainemotionalexpressionsweretaintedbyusingonlyBritishsubjectsandleadinghiswitnessesinthefield,thereisnowutterlyconvincingin-dependentconfirmationofDarwin’sviewthankstotheworkofPaulEkmanandhiscolleagues.SeeEkman1972,1992and1998.Thereareseveralreasonsforsayingthatbasicemotionsexistandevolvedvianat-uralselection.First,homologuesappearinotheranimals–canines,aswellasincloseancestors–oftheemotionsweexperienceandexpress(whetherortowhatextentcaninesfeelemotionsasopposedtosimplymakingexpressionsthatwillproducenormativeconformityisanissueaboutwhichIremainagnostic).Second,insocialmammalianspeciestherearecharacteristicmovementsofthefacialmusculaturethatarerecognisedforwhattheyare(thatis,forthebehaviouraldispositionstheydisplay)byconspecificswhothenseemtorespondappropriatelytotheparticulardisplay.Third,forthebasicemotionsoffear,anger,sur-prise,happiness,sadness,disgustandcontempt(thesearchcontinuesforreliableevidenceforcertainotherlikelysuspects–embarrassment,jealousy,puzzlement,defianceorobstinacy)wehaveorarewellonourwaytolocatingeverbetterphysiologicalmarkersthatdistinguishamongthedifferentemotionalexpressions.Fourth,theemotions,oratleasttherelevantfacialexpressions,allegedtobeuniversal,areinfactrecognisedacrosshumansocieties–amongpre-literateNewGuineansaswellasnativeNewYorkers–forwhattheyare.17.Itisimportanttopointoutthatthesearchforbasicemotionsdependsupontheisolationofdistinctivebehaviouralexpressions,especiallyfacialexpressions.Theremaybeemotionsthatarebasicbutwhichcan-notbedetectedthisway.Findingsomeonesexuallyattractivecan(Iamtold)bedetectedbywideningpupils.Thismaybebasic,butnoticethatitinvolvesalmostnomovementofthefacialmusculature.Agreeingordisagreeingwithsomeonecouldalso,Isuppose,bethoughttofallonCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n434owenflanaganthesideoftheemotions.Darwinamongotherssuspectedthatnoddinguniversallyindicatedagreement,whereasshakingtheheadfromsidetosideindicateddisagreement.Thisturnsoutnottobethecase.Further-more,thereare,accordingtoEkman,culturallyspecificdisplayrulesthatmakeemotionshardertodetectfromfacialexpressionsincertaincultures.18.Griffiths1997,77ff.19.Strawson1962.InFlanagan2000b,IexamineBuddhistviewsonthemodifiabilityofthebasicemotions.20.TheclassicdiscussionofthePanda’sthumbisGould1980.21.Onthenotionofanextendedphenotype,seeDawkins1982.Iamusingthephraseinaless-than-strictsensehere.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nsimonblackburn18Ishumannaturenatural?Allthesentimentsofthehumanmind,gratitude,resent-ment,love,friendship,approbation,blame,pity,emula-tion,envy,haveaplainreferencetothestateandsituationofman,andarecalculatedforpreservingtheexistenceandpromotingtheactivityofsuchabeinginsuchcircum-stances.Hume,DialoguesConcerningNaturalReligion(1779),part3,Section13Itisquitecommonforphilosophers,ifnotbiologists,assessingtheimpactofDarwinonourviewsabouthumannaturetoassociatehimwithHume.OwenFlanaganeventalksofa‘Humean–Darwinian’pictureofhumannature.1InthischapterIwanttocharttherela-tioninsomedetail.Theresultisnottodisruptthemarriagebuttosuggest,withmoreprecisionthanusual,howcloseandhowfertileitactuallyis.ihumannatureBy‘humannature’wegenerallydenotenotourbareanimalconstruc-tion–twoeyes,fourlimbs,onehead,uprightgaitandsoon–butourrathermoreexcitingpsychologicaltraits.Theoristsofhumannatureareparticularlyconcernedwithourcognitiveandmotiva-tionaldispositionsandcapacities,thesubjectsofHume’sTreatiseofHumanNature(1739).Nowadays,oneachofthesetopics,peopleturntoDarwiniantheory,orspeculation,todiscoverwhetheritisinournaturetoberational,emotional,selfish,altruistic,short-sighted,prudent,aggressive,pacific,promiscuous,monogamous,murderous,435CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n436simonblackburnormoral.Ishallheremainlydiscussmotivationalstates,althoughourcognitivecapacitieswillalsomakeanappearance.OnceaDarwiniantakeonourmotivationalstatesisinview,itcanimmediatelybedoubtedwhethertheideaofhumannatureisworthsaving,orwhetheritismerelyastrandedremnantoftheAristotelianideathateverythinghasaNaturalState:anessential-ismwhichwasitselfoneofthecasualtiesofDarwin’srevolution,destroyedbythetwinideasofmutabilityofspecies,andvariationwithinpopulations.2Thesecondoftheseisinfrontofusallthetime:itisafterallcommonlyobservedthatpeopledifferinrespectofselfishness,emotionality,aggressionandtherest.Wecanifwelikesuggestthatsuchdifferencesasweobserveareonlysuperficial,butthatisaploythatneedscarefulhandling.For,putslightlymoreprecisely,theproblemwithonehumanpsychologicalnatureis,first,thatthereisvariationinthehumangenome–indeed,mostwritersbelievethatfomentingthisvaria-tionisthefunctionofsexualreproductionanditsaccompanyinggeneticrecombinations–and,second,thatinfinedetail(andthemakingofbrainsrequiresfinedetail)thejourneyfromgenometophenotypeshowsnoonefixedrelationship.Itshowsonlyavari-etyof‘normsofreaction’,asgenesexpressthemselvesdifferentlyindifferentepigeneticenvironments.Theimportanceofthoseen-vironmentsfirmlybringscultureintothepicture.Weevenknowsomethingabouttheneurologicalsubstrateshowingitsinfluence.TheneuroscientistMichaelMeaneyfoundinratsthatmaternallick-ingandgroomingresultedinoffspringwithbetter-developedhip-pocampi,whichreleasedlessofthestresshormonecortisolwhentheratswerestartled.3Themotherratshadshapedthebrainsoftheiroffspringbyactivatingserotoninreceptorsinthehippocam-pus,whichinturnsenttranscriptionfactorstoturnonagenethatinhibitsstressresponses.Hereisanicecaseofanepigeneticinter-ventionalteringtheneurologicalandhencethepsychologicalnatureofoffspring.Andaswithratsso,wecanbesure,withus:ifmaternalbehaviour(andinotherexperiments,evencertaindietarychanges,suchasthoseinvolvingthemethylradical)canmakethesechanges,thensomuchforanybrashconfidencethatourgenesareourdes-tiny,orthatcultureiscausallyinert.Itisnoteworthy,aswell,thatthedifferenceisabletogeneratelineagesofratswithdifferingstressCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIshumannaturenatural?437reactions:ratsthathavebeenlickedandgroomedmakelessstressed-outmothers,andsothetraitispassedon.Otherepigeneticvariationsareknowntopersistthroughgenera-tions.ThemoleculargeneticistEmmaWhitelawhasdescribedtheconsequenceofepigeneticinheritancethus:Itchangesthewaywethinkaboutinformationtransferacrossgenerations.Themind-setatthemomentisthattheinformationweinheritfromourparentsisintheformofDNA.Ourexperimentdemonstratesthatit’smorethanjustDNAyouinherit.Inasensethat’sobvious,becausewhatweinheritfromourparentsarechromosomes,andchromosomesareonly50percentDNA.Theother50percentismadeupofproteinmolecules,andtheseproteinscarrytheepigeneticmarksandinformation.4Inthefaceofallthispotentialforvariation,someonemightstillsuggestthatthereisauniquehumannature‘intheraw’,perhapsgesturingatthekindofenvironmentinwhichourancestorsmostprobablylivedastheygraduallybecamesomethingdifferentfromourhominidpredecessors.Thiscanbesaid,butthelanguageisun-fortunate.Iteasilysuggeststhatanythingthatdifferentiatesusnowfromthemthenis‘superficial’oreveninsomesenseaveneerordis-guiseofourtruenatures.Thisisnomoresustainablethansayingthatsince,inordertoflourishinAfrica,theseancestorswereprobablybeneficiariesofdarklypigmentedskinandtightlycurledhair,thoseofuswhonowhaveneitherbearmerely‘superficial’phenotypicalappearances,asifunderneathaveneeroffairskinandstraighthairour‘realnature’istobedarkskinnedandcurlyhaired.Iftheideaofthe‘raw’isattachedtothatofonerealnature,thenthereisnorawtobefound.AnythingsuggestedasrawisjustoneenvironmentthatourancestorsoccupiedatonetimeduringthechangefromsomethingintheCambriantoourselves,anditwillbeanopenquestionwhetheranybehaviouraldispositionthatexistedinthatenvironmentismorethanapoorandpartialguidetowhatexistsaroundusinours.Amuchbettersuggestion,therefore,isthat,aswithMichaelMeaney’srats,thereareinterestingconstanciesacrossavarietyofenvironments,justasthereareotherphylogeneticconstanciesinanimaldevelopment.Therewouldbeafinitelystatable,lawlikere-lationshipbetweenrecurrentfeaturesofenvironmentsandparticu-lartraits,andoursharedhumannaturewouldbedescribedbythatCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n438simonblackburnfunction.Thismaybeso.ItmaybethatonedaywecouldinprinciplewritetheBookofHumanNaturedescribingacompleteandlawlikefunctionfromenvironmentalfactorstopsychologicalnatures.Butitmaybethatthereisnosuchbooktowrite,fortimeandchance,theenginesofmutationandchange,mightaffectthefunctionitselfjustasreadilyastheyaffecttheovertpsychologicaloutcomes.Thiswouldnotbescepticismabouthumannaturefromthediscreditedstandpointofa‘blankslate’,butfromthestandpointofacombina-torialexplosionofdifferentlyprimedslates.Wemayremainmoreoptimisticthanallthissuggestsaboutauniquehumannaturalendowment.Afterall,Hume’slistofsenti-ments,inthequotationatthebeginning,isinstantlyrecognisable.Weareindeedcreaturespronetothosesentiments,amongstothers,andtheyseemtobubbleupinmostnormalenvironments.Wearealsocreatureswhodothings;andoneoftheinescapablefactsofhu-manexistenceisourtalentforevolvingconceptsandstrategiesfordealingwiththenaturalworld.Wedidnotmakethatworld;butourconceptualrepertoires,whichinturninfluenceourmotivationalrepertoires,arethingswehavemade,or,better,whichhavemadethemselves.BythatImeanthattheythemselvesmayevolvewith-outconsciousdesign,justasourphenotypicalfeatureshavedone.ThisbringsusdirectlytoHume,butbeforeputtinghimatthecen-treofthestage,adetourisnecessary.iiwhatisdarwinism?RichardDawkinsdefinescoreDarwinismasthe‘minimaltheorythatevolutionisguidedinadaptivelynonrandomdirectionsbythenonrandomsurvivalofsmallrandomhereditarychanges’.5Theno-tionofevolutionbeingguidedatallmightdisconcertsome,iftheyfearthattheghostofPaley’swatchmakercanbediscernedinit,perhapsintheguiseofsomeanthropomorphicversionofMotherNature.Such,ofcourse,wouldbethereverseofDawkins’inten-tion.Itwouldperhapshavebeenbetter,then,justtohavetalkedoftheminimaltheorythatevolutionmovesinadaptivelynonran-domdirectionsthroughthenonrandomsurvivalofsmallrandomhereditarychanges.Thisisanicedefinitionforseveralreasons.Itdoesnotimply,forinstance,thatnothingelsecouldaffectthedirec-tionthatevolutiontakes.Itisthuscompatiblewithrandomdrift,CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIshumannaturenatural?439‘tremblinghands’orcatastrophicexternalimpactsuponvarietiesoflife.Itdoesnotimplythattheresultoftheprocesswilleverbe‘opti-mal’.Itdoesnotimplythatanorganismwillbetheinflexibleowneroffixedroutines,butleavesopenthatitmaybeflexibleandelasticinthewaysitrespondstoenvironmentalstimuliandchange.Itdoesnotaskustothinkofevolution‘selectingfor’onetraitoranother,unless–asitshouldbe–thatphraseisunderstoodasaharmlesslabelforthespecificreproductiveadvantageenjoyedbyanorgan-ismthatbearssometraitastheresultofheritablevariation.Infactthetidied-upminimaltheoryimpliessolittlethatbyitselfitmightscarcelycountasapieceoffalsifiablescientifictheory.Thepunchcomeswhentheprocessesofsmallrandomhereditarychangeareidentified,andtheadvantagetheygivespecified.Thensciencegetsunderway.6TheadaptivelynonrandomdirectionthatDawkinsdescribesisduetothebiggernumberorbettersurvivalrateofdescendantsoforganisms–anincreaseduetowhateverpropertiesthesmallran-domhereditarychangegivesthoseorganisms.Inobviousscenarios,itmaymakethembigger,orfaster,orgivethembetterarmament,ormakethemmoreresistanttosomepathogenorother,orgivethemabettersensoryadjustmenttowhateveritisthattheyneedfromtheirenvironment.Itmaymakethemmoreintelligent,ormoreco-operative,ormoreselfish,or,equally,lessselfish.For,contrarytothecommonmisapprehensionoftheDarwinianjungleasfavouringonlythebigbeasts,thepredatorsandpsychopaths,Itakeitthatitisnowwellunderstoodthatinmanycircumstancesrestraintandmodera-tionbringreproductiveadvantage.Amongparasites,forexample,alethalvarietythatquicklykillsitshostissettospreadlessefficientlythananotherwiseidenticalvariantthattakesenoughfromthehosttomakeitill,butnomore,enablingittocontinuetomoveaboutandthencespreadtheparasite’soffspringtootherhosts.Contrarytotheprevailingspiritinbiologyagenerationago,increasedunderstandingofiteratedgamesandofevolutionarydynamicsingeneralhasmadeitabundantlyclearthatsometimesniceguysfinishfirst.Thusimaginearoomwithasetoftables,ateachofwhichanum-berofpersonsareengagedinsomeversionofaPrisoner’sDilemmagame.7Inthisstructure,thetotalgatheredbythetableisgreatestifeachpersoncooperateswiththeothers.Buteveryonecandobet-terforthemselves,oneachplay,by‘defecting’orcheating,breakingCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n440simonblackburntheimplicitagreement.Ifweimagineplaysrepeated,thentheso-cialgoodsaccruetothecooperatingtables,whilethetableswithdefectorsstayimpoverished.Ifwethenimagineadynamicwherebycooperatorsgravitatetocooperatingtables,anddefectorsareban-ishedtodefectingtables,theroomwilltendtosplitintotwokinds:allcooperatingandalldefecting.Ifwemakethisanevolutionarydynamic–supposethetraitsareinheritedandpeopleleaveoffspringinnumbersproportionaltotheirchips–graduallytheroomfillswithcooperatingtables.8Iftheenvironmentistoughandliveli-hooddependsuponcooperation,itisespeciallyclearthatwemusthangtogetherorweallhangseparately,sohangingtogetherithastobe.9Advantagerequiresamoment’sthought.Itisofcourserelativetocontext:atraitthatgivesahigherreproductivesuccessrateinsomeenvironmentsmaynotdosoinothers,justasthederniercriinlastyear’sfashionmayfailtoattractamateinthisyear’sdatingmarket.Butthenotionofanadvantage,thatis,atraitbeingcausallyresponsibleforthenumericalsuccessinquestion,hidesnointrin-sicdifficulty,althoughithasbeensuggestedthatitdoes.TakingLewontinandGould’sfamousexampleoftheco-occurrenceofspan-drelsandarches,JerryFodorarguesthatwhentraitsarecoextensiveitmakesnosensetosaythatitisonethatevolutionhas‘selectedfor’ratherthantheother:thiskindofremarkcouldonlybemaderelativetotheintentionsorpurposesofadesigner,sothat,unlessweagainpostulatePaley’swatchmakerorMotherNature,thenotionlosesitsapplication.10Butthereisnorealdifficultyhere.Causationisdiscriminating.Twotraitsmaybefoundtogetherinnature,butonecanbecausallyresponsibleforanincreasednumberofdescendantswhentheotherisnot.Itmaybethatallandonlyvertebrateswitheyescarryaroundvariousproteinsthatgotomakingupeyeballs.Butthesensitivitytolightiswhatgivestheadvantage,notthecarriageofthoseproteins.Ifweimagineaclose-upmovieoftheevolutionofaneye,wewouldexpecttofindsomeinitiallyminusculesensitiv-itytolightjustenablingacreaturetofindfoodoravoidpredatorsorfindamate,whenitsblindcompetitorscannot.Andthatinitialset-upisallthatisneededforthatcreaturetohaveareproductiveadvantageduetolightsensitivity,andnotduetocarryinglittlelens-shapedpodsofproteins.(Ifamutationgeneratedcreaturesburdenedwithlittlelens-shapedpodsofthesameproteinsthatwerenotinCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIshumannaturenatural?441anywayconnectedtoanabilitytorespondtolight,thentheywouldbemerelyweigheddown–thereverseofadvantage.)Ifwecandetectanysuchbenefitduetolightsensitivity,theninprinciplewecananticipateandexplainthedifferentialinreproductivesuccess,andifthetraitcanbeinherited,thenthatisallevolutionthroughnaturalselectionneeds.11Fodormaynothaveintendedhisscepticismtoembraceallcasesofcoextension,whichiseasilycompatiblewithdifferentcausalpowersattachingtodifferentproperties,butonlytoadifferentphenomenonwhichisslightlymorecomplex.Hisillustrationoftheproblemhehasdiscoveredisthewhitenessofpolarbears,andthequestionheasksiswhethernatureselectsforthewhitenessorfortheirprop-ertyofbeingthesamecolourastheirenvironment.Beingwhiteandbeingthesamecolourastheenvironmentareindeedtwodifferentfeatures,becauselotsofanimalshavethelatterpropertybutnottheformer.Theideaisthatneitheranswercouldbeotherthanar-bitrary,andhencethat,intheabsenceoftheghostofadesigner,evolutionarytheory’sdeclarationsofonetraitasanadaptationandanotherasamerepassengerarearbitraryacrosstheboard.That,however,wouldbeanunwarrantedgeneralization,sincetheexam-pleisquiteuntypical.Inthecaseofthepolarbear,itistemptingtosaythatbeingwhiteiswhatitistobethesamecolourastheenvironment–intheArctic,whereascoextensiondoesnotingeneraldeliverthistemptation:nobodywouldsaythathavingaheartiswhatitistohavealiver,justbecauseallcreaturesthathaveonehavetheother.Andthatinturnleavestheevolutionarytheoristtwocompatibleoptionsfordismissingthedifficulty.Considerthisparallelcase.Sup-posemybelovedchildtelephoneswiththebadnewsthathisaccountis$10,000inthered;heisbeingpursuedbythebank’stamethugs,andisnaturallyperturbed.Ikindlyput$10,000inhisaccount,re-lievinghismind.AFodorianquestionwouldbe:whichfeatureofmyactionactuallyrelievedhismind?Wasitmypayingoffallhisdebt,orwasitmyputting$10,000intotheaccount?Likethewhitenessandthecamouflage,thesearetwodifferentfeatures:theycancomeapart.Ifhehadowedmore,Icouldhavedoneonewithoutdoingtheother.Buttherobustansweristhatwesimplydon0twanttochoose:inthiscontextputting$10,000intotheaccountsimplyispayingoffallhisdebt,andthatisallweneedtosay.WedonotneedtorefineCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n442simonblackburnfurther.IfonepsychologistsaysthatIrelievedhismindbypayingoffallhisdebt,andanothersaysIdidsobyputting$10,000inhisac-count,theyarenotatoddswitheachother.Theymightbecomeso,iftheyaddeddifferentmicroscopicdetailtotheexactroutefrommychildfindingwhatIhaddonetohisbeingrelieved,butasitstandstheyarenot.Adifferentanswer,motivatedbyfamiliarphilosophyofscience,isthatifFodorholdsaguntoourheadsandinsiststhatwedohavetochoose,itmaybebetteringeneraltosaythatitispayingoffallhisdebtthatrelievesmyson’smind,becausethereisasimplicityandgeneralitytothatanswerthataccordswithgoodscientificpractice.Ifhisdebthadbeengreater,asiteasilymighthavebeen,payingitalloffwouldstillhavedonethetrick,whereas$10,000mightnothave.Theapplicationtocamouflageisobvious.Beingwhiteonlyworksinsomecontexts;beingthesamecolourastheenvironmentmuchmoregenerallyconfersanadvantage.Butwedonothavetochoosetoanswer,andanequallygoodresponseisgentlytopushthegunawayaltogether.Aratherdifferentcharge,whichalsohoversinFodor’sarticle,isthattherecanbenogeneralscienceofselection,anymorethantherecanbeascienceofgettingrich:therearesimplytoomanyunderlyingwaysofdoingit,toomuch‘variablerealisation’ofthephenomenaofadvantagefortheretobeanythinginterestingandgeneraltosayaboutit.Theremaybesometruthinthis,butitisfarfromanykindofrejectionofcoreDarwinism.ItjustmeansthateachapplicationofDarwinianreasoningstandsonitsownfeet,asitwere.Butthisissomethingthatbiologistscertainlyrecognise;foronekindofadvantagetoonekindoforganismwillofcoursenotlookmuchlikeanotherkindofadvantagetoadifferentkindoforganism.Areasonablecaveataboutadvantageisthatitisnotalwayseasytoidentifyjustonebeneficiaryofanyadvantage.Anadvantagemaybemulti-level:anewtreatmentofafootballinjurymaybenefitsome-one’sankle,theplayerhimself,histeam,thespectatorsandthedoc-torwhoinventedit.Herethereisacleararrowofcausation;forexample,thetreatmentbenefitstheteambybenefitingtheplayer,andnottheotherwayround.Butinothercasesitmaybetheotherwayround:betterseatingmaybenefittheplayersbybenefitingthespectators,andgeneratingabiggergate.AdvantagedoesnothavetoCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIshumannaturenatural?443be‘bottomup’,andneitherdoesithavetobetheadvantageofoneuniquerecipientonly.AsDawkinshimselfnotes,coreDarwinismgivesusthetemplateofahistoricalexplanationofwhysomethingisthecase.Thetem-platecanbefilledingenetically,intermsofmutationsinDNA,forexample,butinprincipleitcouldbefilledinquitedifferently.Thisflexibilitygivesusachoice.Wemightwanttosaythatonlystrictge-neticmutationandvariationwithensuingdifferentialreproductiveratecountsasaDarwinianexplanationofanythinghuman.Orwemightwanttosaythatifotherprocessesthrowupdifferences,andthenthosedifferencesgeneratedifferentratesofpersistence,thenthosecounttoo.Dawkins’ownfamousexampleofextrageneticinheritanceisthatofthe‘meme’,thoughtofasareplicatingculturalunit,capableofspawningmoreorlessaccuratecopiesofitselfwhichtheninturnhavedifferentialratesofreproductivesuccess.IfwetakethismorerelaxedviewofwhatcancountasaDarwinianreplicator,wemighttalkoftheevolution,say,ofpost-ShakespeareanEnglishvocabularyasagenuinelyDarwinianprocess.Shakespeare’stimewasoneofremarkablyfertilegenerationoflexicalmutationsandadaptationsofoldvocabularytonewuses.Some,suchas‘eyeball’or‘retirement’didverywellintheenvironmentoflistenersandreadersandwhattheywanted,andthrived.Otherssuchas‘skyish’or‘maugre’didnot,andhavebecomeextinct.IfweliketoseethisselectivepreservationandextinctionasaDarwinianprocess,wemustbeawarethatonecrucialelementofthemoretraditionalDarwinianexplanationsofchangeissofarmissing.Inthecaseofpolarbears’colouringortheevolutionoftheeye,wehaveadefiniteconceptionofthepreciseadvantageresponsibleforthefrequencychange:theabilitytoblendintotheenvironmentandthesensitivitytolight.InthecaseofEnglishwedonot.Nobodycansaywhysomecoinagessucceedandothersfail.Wecan,ifwelike,saythattheremustbe‘something’–someneed,somereasonforcatchingon–butwedonotknowwhatitwas,andperhapsnobodycouldhavepredictedthattherewasorwasnotanysuchfeature.Afterall,attemptstoidentifyanunfillednicheinalanguageandthenfillitarenotoriouslyquixotic:everyoneknowsthatEnglishreallyneedsagender-neutralsingularpronoun,andatvarioustimesCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n444simonblackburnpeoplehavecampaignedfor‘thon’,‘hesh’,‘hu’andothers,butwithabsolutelynosuccesswhatever.Moregenerally,allwehaveinmanycasesofchangeisthepost-hocandquantificationaljudgmentthat‘theremusthavebeensomeadvantage/disadvantagetoit’.Itisthisthatmakesussuspiciousthattheideaofa‘meme’onlyyieldsthenear-tautologythatwhatevercatchesonmusthavecaughtonforsomereason.Itmaybeaninvitationforustolookforthereason,butisnotasitstandsapieceoffalsifiablescience.Nevertheless,theabstractorstructuralnatureofDawkins’defi-nitionremainsanadvantage.Foritopensupthepossibilityofseeingvariationbynaturalselectioninothercaseswheretheadvantagecanbespecified,andwherewecanhaveagoodideaofthereasonwhyitmighthavehadanimpactonnumericalsuccess.Asweshallshortlysee,specificityedgesDarwinianexplanationclosertoHume.iiihume’snaturalismindarwinianretrospectTherearefourmainheadingsunderwhichHume’stitletobeingaDarwinianbeforehistimecanbehighlighted.Theyare(1)hisnatu-ralism,orgeneralemphasisonnature,notreason;(2)hisparticularemphasisinethicsonpassionasagainstrationalcognition;(3)his‘ecological’accountofparticulartraits;and,mostdirectly,(4)hisex-plicitgenealogyofparticularabilities,andinparticularthoseassoci-atedwithcooperation.ThereisspacehereonlytosketchthekindofconsiliencewithDarwinismthatthesethemesinHumeillustrate.12Hume’semphasisonnaturalbeliefpervadesallhiswritings.By‘naturalbelief’ismeantthewayournaturalpropensitiesbendorforcethewayweinterprettheworld.Hishumanbeingisananimallikeothers,boundtoseeandtobelieve.Butreasoncannotunderwritetheprocessnoreverdomorethantinkerwithitatthemargins.Inalltheessentialbusinessoflife,natureistoostrongforreason.Thusanyattempttoshowthatwheneventshavefallenintosomepatternthentheymustgoondoingso,orevenwillgoondoingso,fails.Anyattempttounderstandthenotionofacausalpowerinthings,thoughtofasakindofstraitjacketensuringthattheorderofnatureisstableandwillforeverremainso,fails.Anyattempttovalidatethesenses,showingthattheyleadustoseethingsastheyare,fails–indeedfailsparticularlyspectacularly,sincewhathappensinsteadisthatwhenwereasonthingsthrough,wefindthatourordinaryCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIshumannaturenatural?445interpretationoftheworldarounduscannotpossiblybecorrect.Hence,ifwerelieduponourreasoningcapacitiestoformorsustainourbeliefs,wewouldbeleftwithnoconfidenceinanything,thesituationofPyrrhonianscepticism.Butwearenotextremesceptics,becausenature–ournature–istoostrongforscepticism:‘thegreatsubverterofPyrrhonismortheexcessiveprinciplesofscepticism,isaction,andemployment,andtheoccupationsofcommonlife’.13Throughoutallthis,Humestressesthecontinuitywiththeanimalworld:‘Thoughtheinstinctbedifferent,yetstillitisaninstinct,whichteachesamantoavoidthefire;asmuchasthatwhichteachesabird,withsuchexactness,theartofincubation,andthewholeeconomyandorderofitsnursery.’14HisnaturalismdoesnotmeanthatHumehasnostandpointfromwhichtocriticisesomecommonhabitsordispositionsofbeliefformation.Hethinksthatweareoftenundulyswayedby‘trivial’propertiesoftheimagination,thatwetakeinexactviewsofthings,thatweareinfluencedbypassionsthathavenothingtodowiththecase,andsoon.Thesearequalitiesofmindthatarenotadaptive,notuseful,oratleastnotsowhentheysurfaceindiscriminately.Thisimperfectioninturngiveshimanexcuseforhisownphilo-sophicalactivity.Heiswellawarethathavingdenigratedreasonsothoroughly,heisinasomewhatunstableposition,writingbooksonphilosophy,usingtheverytoolsofreasonandreflectionthathehasapparentlydenounced.Butheanswersthatthereisstillarolefor‘mitigatedscepticism’,apositionthatacceptswithashrugthegeneralcaveatsaboutthescopeofreason,butgoesontouseitwithcaution,andindustry,ingatheringdataandreflectingonhumannatureandhumanexistence.Humeishereanancestorofmodernpragmatism,ortheviewthatourcognitivemachineryisanadaptationtoenableustocope,notprimarilytoenableustorepresenttheworld,forassoonasweinves-tigatewhetheritdoesthatjobofrepresentation,scepticismisboundtoassailus.Pragmatismisitselfoftenthoughtofasapost-Darwinianphilosophy,onedeterminedtostickcloselytotheadaptivefunctionofdifferentpartsofourcognitivearchitectures,butHumeisunmis-takablyonthesameside.Indeed,hegoessofarastoseebeliefitselfinquasi-dynamicterms.Abeliefisdistinguishedbyits‘forceandvivacity’,anditsforceandvivacityrefertoitscapacitytodetermineintentionsandaction.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n446simonblackburnivhume,darwinismandthepassionsThesecondDarwinianelementinHumeishisaccountofmotivationingeneral,andmoralmotivationinparticular.HeentirelyreversesthephilosophicalpicturefromPlatoandAristotleonwards,wherebyunrulypassionsaretobegovernedanddirectedbythelightofrea-son.Hisrejectionofthisisflamboyant:‘reasonisandoughttobetheslaveofthepassions,andcanneverpretendtoanyotherofficethantoserveandobeythem’.15Heisnot,ofcourse,denyingfamiliarprocessesofself-control,aswhenwesummonupfearsofgettingfatinordertofendoffthetemptationofthesecondhelping,orinmoreseriouscontextswherewethinkthingsthrough,bringingallourre-servesofknowledgeandexperiencetobearonpracticaldecisions.Butthepointisthatreasonishereindeedservingthepassions:byidentifyingalternativesandconsequencesandaspectsofthesitua-tionwemighthavemissed,reasonclearsthefield,asitwere,forourpassionstooperate.Itneverthelessremainsthecasethatwewillonlyavoidthesecondhelpingifindeedweareafraidofgettingfat,andtheknowledgeandexperiencewebringtobearisonlyrelevantifittoorevealsaspectsofasituationthatmattertous,thatengageourpassions.NoneoftheabovemeshesdirectlywithDarwinism.Butitbeginstodosowhenappliedtomoralmotivation.Hume’sboldstrokeistoassertthatmoralmotivationisnothingspecial.Itisnoexceptiontothegeneralpictureofmotivationbythepassions,anditiscertainlynothingwithatingeofthesupernaturalaboutit.ThecontrasthereisnotonlywithaPlatonicviewofastrangerealmoflaws,eternalfitnessesofthingsorprinciplesofjusticeandright,availabletoaproperlytrainedelite,butalsowiththereligiousorsupernaturalembodimentofthePlatonicidea,seeingmorallawassomekindofedictofthedivinelawgiver.Theseareprofoundlyun-Darwinianideas,since,oncethemoraltruthisdividedfromthenaturalworld,therecanbenoaccountofwhy‘seeing’thattruthshouldgiveanyparticularadvantage,noristhereanyexplanationofwhyweshouldbedrawntowhateverwe‘see’,noranyapparentconnectionbetweenwhatismysteriously‘seen’andwhatmatterstoushereandnow.Hume’sresponseistoshort-circuitthewholething.Amoralmo-tivationisessentiallynodifferentfromanyother.Therearecer-tainqualitiesofthings,particularlyofotherpeople,whichexciteCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIshumannaturenatural?447positivereactionsinus:loveandadmiration,benevolenceandplea-sure.Thereareotherswhichdothereverse.Thesetendenciesarequiteopen:indeedtheyaresocleartheyareoftensimplygiveninourlanguage.Weallknowifwearebeingcriticisedorapplauded,whetherwearecalledmean,boring,selfish,pedantic,rashandfool-ish,oralternativelygenerous,cheerful,hard-workingorthoughtful,orifwearecalledanyofathousandotherthings.16Attributedtoourselves,thesequalitiesproduceshameorpride,andmotivateusaccordingly.Appliedtoothers,theydenoteaversionoradmiration.Buthowdoqualitiesgetontotheselistsofmeritsordemerits,virtuesorvices?Aftersiftingtheevidence,Humedeter-minesthatitiswhentheyare‘qualitiesofmindusefuloragreeabletoourselvesorothers’.Itisacontingentfactabouthumanbeings–abrutefactaboutournatures–thatwenoticethesequalitiesandareaffectedbythem,evenwhentheyarenotbeingexercisedtoourownpersonalbenefitorcost(weadmireorcondemnhistoricalagentsandevenfictionalcharacters).Butofcoursethisfactaboutusiswhatmakessociallifeandsocialcoordinationpossible.Ourcaringaswedoaboutmoralqualitiesmakespossiblea‘commonpointofview’withthosewhoareorwereintheorbitoftheagent.Hear-ingofabenevolentperson,wefeelakindoflove,justasthosewhowereinhisfamilyorhiscircleoffriendsmusthavedone.Hearingofamalevolentorevenjustafoolishperson,wefeelacorrespond-ingannoyanceordislike.Anditisthisannoyanceoradmiration,aversionorrespect,thatissharedandabsorbedaswebecomeso-cialised,andthatisvoicedinourendlessactivitiesofgossipandevaluation.BybringingethicswithinthesphereofthepassionsHumede-mythologisesit.Herepresentsitasanaturalfacetofoursociallives,theexpressionofpassionsthatarethemselvesadvantagestous,use-fulandoftenagreeable.Ifatthispointweworrythatthereisnothingmuchinthispictureaboutobligation,duty,justiceorprinciple,thenweshouldwaitforthefurtherstoryaboutjustice,whichIshallcometoshortly.vtraitecologiesinhumeBeforeturningtothegenealogyofjusticehowever,weshouldno-ticethethirdofHume’sproto-Darwinianinterests,whichistheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n448simonblackburnparticularfunctionaloradaptivestoryhegivesaboutindividualtraitsandpassions.Humeworkedwithconfidenceinasharedhumannature:thecomplexitiesofvariationandepigeneticswereunknown,andlittleenoughanthropologicalevidenceofhumanvari-ationswasavailable.Whatwasknownandwellevidenced,however,washistory;andHumeknewthroughhisextensiveworkasahisto-rianthatagainstanybackgrounduniformitythereexistedconsider-ablevariation.Inseveralofhisessays(especially‘OfNationalChar-acters’and‘OfSomeRemarkableCustoms’)hedwellsonjustthistheme.17Otherwriters,suchasMontesquieu,hadspeculatedthatnationaldifferencessomehowarosefromdifferencesofclimate.18Humelooksinsteadforwhathecalls‘moralcauses’;andinsodoingheofferswhatare,ineffect,functionalexplanationsofwhyapar-ticulartraitmightbeadaptiveorusefulinonesetofcircumstancesbutnotinothers.Infact,histargetsforexplanationareoftenex-tremelydroll,suchasthespendthriftnatureofarmyofficers,orthehypocrisyofpriests,ortheasymmetricattitudemanycultureshavetowardsmaleandfemalechastity.Helocatesthisdoublestandard,asdoesmodernspeculation,intheasymmetricrolesofmenandwomeninreproduction.However,unlikemodernevolutionaryac-counts,healsobelievesitisafragileandinducedasymmetry,cultur-allyreinforcedandsustained.Hehasnogreatfaithinthe‘natural’monogamousnatureofwomen,andthisdoubtsurelygiveshimanadvantageoverevolutionarypsychologistswhobelievethatsuchanatureiscementedintothegenes.Forcultureswouldnotputintheenormouseffortstheyoftendotoencourageorenforcefemalechastityifitcameasnaturallyasgrowinghairorfeet.19AfinalexampleofthisworkthatIshallmention,althoughwehavejustscratchedthesurface,isthesecondpartofthefamouschapteronmiracles,inHume’sEnquiryConcerningHumanUnder-standing(1748).Inthefirstpartofthechapter,Humeshowsthatwhenwearegivenareportofamiraculousevent,aneventabso-lutelycontrarytothehithertouniformcourseofnature,itshouldbecredibleonlyinsofarasthefalsityofthereportwouldbeasgreatamiracleastheeventallegedtohavehappened.Inthesecondparthegoesontourgethatthisconditionisfarfrombeingmetinanyoftheactualtestimoniesthatdifferentreligionswaveinfrontofus.Butthisleavesapuzzle:whatisitinourcognitiveeconomiesthatmakesussusceptibletothesekindsofstories?Hume–hereCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIshumannaturenatural?449followinginthetraditionofFrancisBacon–setsouttotheoriseaboutcognitivedysfunction,andparticularlythewayinwhichsuchthingsasvanityandloveofthemarvellousdistortournaturalmech-anismsofbeliefformation.Heishereanancestorofthepursuitofsimilarthemesincontemporarypsychology,suchasthoseconcen-tratingonthemechanism–well-knowntopoliticians,priestsandgurus–underlyingthesurprisinglycontagiousnatureofotherpeo-ple’savowalsorconfidence.Oursurprisingdegreeofgullibility,or‘cognitiveconformity’,heldnosurprisesforHume.Theaboveisbutasmallsampleofthevariousphenomenaofhu-mannaturethatHumeconsiders.Butthepatternisalwaysthesame:naturalistic,economicalandbasedinastrongsenseofwhatprovesadaptiveanduseful,andwhatthereverse.Heretoowemightmen-tionthatwheretheecologicalsettingislacking,Humeisutterlyscornfulofanyattempttoimputeapsychology.Thusthequotationattheheadofthechapterispartofapassagemockingthereligiousbeliever’sattributionofhumanemotionstothedeity.Foroursenti-ments‘arecalculatedforpreservingtheexistenceandpromotingtheactivity’ofourselvesinoursituations.Sincethemonotheist’sdeitydoesnotinhabitanyparticularnaturalorsocialniche,Humedrilypointsoutthat‘itseemsunreasonabletotransfersuchsentimentstoasupremeexistenceortosupposehimactuatedbythem’.vihume’sdarwiniangenealogiesThefourthandinsomewaysthemosttellingexampleofincipientDarwinismisHume’sgenealogicalaccountofjusticeandobligation.First,acaveat.Humeputsunder‘justice’somequitespecificthings,notablytheobligationsassociatedwiththeideasofproperty,promis-ingandgovernmentorlaw.Heisnotconcernedwithimmediateper-ceptionsoffairness,ofthekindthatexcitesmallchildrenanxiousabouttheirshareofthecake,orevencapuchinmonkeys,outragedatbeingrewardedlessforthesametaskforwhichafellowmonkeywasrewardedmore.20Humewouldhaveclassifiedsuchcaseswithnaturaldesireoraversion,triggeredbytheperceptionofacontem-porarygettingmoreinreturnfordoingthesameorless.Thisdiver-gencedoesnotdetractfromtheinterestofHume’saccount,andforthatmatteritseconomicandpoliticalimportance.ButthestructuresHumeisinterestedinaremorecomplex.HeisinterestedincasesCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n450simonblackburnwhereapersonismotivatedtodosomethinginitiallydisadvanta-geous,butwhichturnsintoanadvantageonlyontheexpectationthatanotherplaystheirdesiredpartintheenterprise.Or,asheputsit,heisinterestedinstructuresthatarenotlikeheaps,inwhicheachstoneaddsitsbulkregardless,butlikearches,inwhicheachstoneplaysitssupportiveroleonlyontheconditionthattheotherstonesdo.21TheoutlineiswellknownandIshallnotrehearseithere:ithasfrequentlybeenacknowledgedinmodernwritingsontheevolutionofconventionandcooperation.22OneofHume’sownsummariesisadmirablybrief:Allmoraldutiesmaybedividedintotwokinds.Thefirstarethose,towhichmenareimpelledbyanaturalinstinctorimmediatepropensity,whichoper-atesonthem,independentofallideasofobligation,andofallviews,eithertopublicorprivateutility.Ofthisnatureare,loveofchildren,gratitudetobenefactors,pitytotheunfortunate.Whenwereflectontheadvantage,whichresultstosocietyfromsuchhumaneinstincts,wepaythemthejusttributeofmoralapprobationandesteem:Buttheperson,actuatedbythem,feelstheirpowerandinfluence,antecedenttoanysuchreflection.Thesecondkindofmoraldutiesaresuchasarenotsupportedbyanyorig-inalinstinctofnature,butareperformedentirelyfromasenseofobligation,whenweconsiderthenecessitiesofhumansociety,andtheimpossibilityofsupportingit,ifthesedutieswereneglected.Itisthusjusticeoraregardtothepropertyofothers,fidelityortheobservanceofpromises,becomeoblig-atory,andacquireanauthorityovermankind.Forasitisevident,thateverymanloveshimselfbetterthananyotherperson,heisnaturallyimpelledtoextendhisacquisitionsasmuchaspossible;andnothingcanrestrainhiminthispropensity,butreflectionandexperience,bywhichhelearnstheperniciouseffectsofthatlicence,andthetotaldissolutionofsocietywhichmustensuefromit.Hisoriginalinclination,therefore,orinstinct,isherecheckedandrestrainedbyasubsequentjudgmentorobservation.23FromtheDarwinianpointofviewthereisacrucialpointconcealedinthispassage,andinHume’slongertreatmentsoftheissue.Humepresentstheobligationsofjusticeinrespectofpropertyandfidelityinkeepingpromisesas‘artificial’,ortheresultsoftheemergenceofconvention.Buthealsopresentsthatemergenceastheresultof‘judgmentorobservation’.Itiswith‘reflectionandexperience’thatwecometowanttodobetterthananypre-social,non-cooperativeversionofawarofallagainstall.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIshumannaturenatural?451Wemightwanttoquerytheintroductionofratiocinationatthispoint.Afterall,Humeexplicitlysaysthatitisbythesamemecha-nismthatotherpillarsofsociallifeemerge,andhecitesthestruc-turesoflanguageandmoney.24Yethemighthavereflectedthatprototypesoflanguage,inthesignallingsystemsofotheranimals,emergewithoutreflectionandratiocination.Thereareevensignalsthatarethefunctionalequivalentofpromises,suchasthe‘canidbow’thatdogsmaketosignalnon-aggressionortheintentiontoplay,andwhosemisuse,insomespecies,cancausesevererepercussions,suchasexclusionfromthepack.25Sohowshouldwethinkofthecontrastingversions?Oneitherversionofthestory,itistheincon-venienceofthewarofallagainstallcomparedtotheoverwhelmingadvantageofcooperativestabilitythatistheenginedrivingtheemer-genceofconvention.OnHume’sversiontheengineworksbecauseweareawareofthesethings.Wehaveasenseofcommoninterestindoingbetter.Ontheotherversionitwouldworkbylesscogni-tivemechanisms.Ifwesupposeasmallrandomchange,a‘trem-blinghand’inducingsomecooperationsomewhere,thenwhetheritisrecognisedornot,theadvantagethiswouldgivewouldbeinprinciplereadytodrivetheusualDarwiniandynamic.Hume’sversionhascertainadvantages.Heisclearthatincon-formingourselvestotheseconventionsweneedamotivetorestrainourimmediateself-interest.Theonlymotivecanbeaconditionalex-pectation:theconfidencethatifwedoourpart,otherswilldotheirs,butthatifwedonot,thentheywillnoteither.And,atleastforhu-manbeings,itisnoteasytoimaginethekindofbehaviourgeneratedbythiskindofconfidencehappeningwithoutthatconfidencebeingcognitivelyengenderedandsustained.Inactualpractice,ofcourse,itis;andwhenthingsareworkingproperly–whentheagent‘in-tendstoliveongoodtermswithmankind’–thedispositionisthencementedintoplacebytheshameandfearofcontemptthatattendeventhethoughtoftransgression.IstheHumeanstoryDarwinianinessence?Therearegoodrea-sonstothinkso.Firstly,givenaninitiallynon-cooperativesituation,itmightstilltakeasmallrandomevent,a‘tremblinghand’,toiniti-atethefirstfalteringstepstowardsanycooperativeequilibria.Andthen,secondly,ourawarenessesandcognitivefunctioningmakeupjustonepartofouranimalnatures;so,fromanabstractpointofview,naturalselectionduetotheoperationoftheseabilitiesisjustCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n452simonblackburnanothercaseofnaturalselection.AndHumeisclearthatittakestime:theruleofstabilityofproperty,forinstance,‘arisesgradually,andacquiresforcebyaslowprogression,andbyourrepeatedexpe-rienceoftheinconvenienceoftransgressingit’.26FinallyweshouldnoticethatHume’sgenealogyescapesthechargemadeagainstthepromiscuoususeofthenotionofa‘meme’.Theadvantagesheistalkingaboutarethestabilityofpropertyandthefidelitygiventopromises;anditisveryclearindeedwhyanyunfortunatehominids,orsocieties,whocouldnotmanageeitherwouldbepoorrabbles,settodobadlyinanycompetitionwithus,whocanmanageboth.UnlikeNietzsche’smorenotoriousgenealogyofmorals,Hume’sisastorythatcanleaveusquitesatisfiedwithourselves.27Itisthereverseofadebunkingstory.Itshowshumanshavingaproblemandsolvingit.Or,ifweprefer,itshowsanadaptation–asetoftraitsthatareadvantageous,andthatareheritableinthesenseinwhichepigeneticfeaturesareso.Thechildrenofacultureinwhichnormsofcooperationareentrenchedwillbemuchmorelikelytogrowintocooperativeadultsthanchildrenwhostartinaworldofthewarofallagainstall.Ontheotherhand,aswithfemalechastity,wemustbeclearthatitisapoliticalandsocialachievementtosustainsuchaculture.Wecannotrelyonournaturestodoitforus,astheunhappydescentsintobellicoseequilibriaofmanypartsoftheworldshow.WemightthereforejustlycallHume’saccountDarwinian.Andwemightwanttopreferittorecent‘modular’evolutionarypsycholo-gies,whichclaimthatthereisanin-builtmoralfacultythatdeter-minesourresponsestoeachother’sactions,inmuchthesamewaythatanativeuniversalgrammarispostulatedtounderlieourlinguis-ticskills.28Iftheideaofmodularityimpliesthattheoutputsofthis‘module’areinthemselvesimpermeable,liketheperceptionofwhatweknowtobevisualillusions,unaffectedbywhatelsewethink,per-ceiveorsay,thenIseelittleevidenceforitinthehumanworld.29Unlikeoursensitivitytothesyntaxofourmothertongues,ourethicsarerelentlesslysubjectsofreflection,conversationandpersuasion,anddiscursivepressurechangespeople’sminds.Furthermore,iftheoutputsofthemodulearesupposedtobemotivations,ratherthaninertjudgments,thenthecatastrophicequilibriaalreadymentionedstandascounterexamples.Apersonfindingthatothersdonotre-ciprocateorplaytheirroleisquickenoughtothinkofhimselfas,inHume’swords,a‘cullyofhisintegrity’,andchangehisbehaviourCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nIshumannaturenatural?453accordingly.30Sadly,enoughpeoplearenotmotivatedtobehavere-motelydecentlyinanycaseforustodoubtwhetherdecencysitsinourgenes,eveninwhicheverwaylanguagedoes.Finally,ofcourse,storiesaboutmodulesareonlystopgapsfromDarwin’sperspective,sincetheythrowtheissueofunderstandingourmoralcapacitiesbackontotheevolutionarystorybehindsuchathing,whichineffectwillreintroducethegeneralmechanismswhichmoreeconomicallydothesamejob.viiconclusion:naturehumanised(andhumeanised)Thereis,Ihope,afinalmoraltoallthisdrawingoutofaffinitiesbetweentheHumeanandDarwinianprogrammes.Ibeganbywor-ryingabouttheveryconceptofhumannature.Withsuchworriesaround,wemaylosemuchappetiteforthefamiliarnature-versus-nurturedialectic.ButItakeitthegenealogiesIhavebeensketchingalsohelptokickanysimpleoppositionintotouch.Itisnaturaltoustobuildconventions,justasitisnaturaltobuildshelters,wearclothesorsupportroofswitharches.Humesawthisaswell,andbythetimehepublishedhisEnquiryConcerningthePrinciplesofMorals(1751),hehadhimselfsubstantiallyabandonedtheearliervo-cabularyof‘natural’versus‘artificial’virtues,whilestillgivingthesametheoryofthesamestructuresofconvention.WhatevermayhavebeenthecaseamongourancestorsbackinthePleistoceneandbeyond,today,amongadulthumansinsocietiesthatwork,artificeliesinournatures.notes1.SeeFlanagan,thisvolume.2.Forsomeofthecomplexitieshere,seeSober1980.3.Weaveretal.2004.4.Quotedin‘DNAisNotDestiny’,Discover,Nov.2006.5.Dawkins2003,81.6.Itmaybealittlechurlish,butIthinkappropriate,toraisethesamecomplaintagainstDanielC.Dennett’ssubstitutionof‘cranes’for‘sky-hooks’;seeDennett,thisvolume.Cranesmaystandontheground,buttheyalsotuginaparticulardirection,whereasthegreatfeatureofCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n454simonblackburnevolutionarytheoryisthatlivingthingsgrow,asindeeddomountains,withoutbeingtuggedinanydirectionatall.Theychugalong,withmoreofsomekindsandfewerofothersovertime.7.Foranintroductiontogametheoryinevolutionarydiscussionsofmoral-ity,seeRosenberg,thisvolume.8.Noticethatifadefectorcandisguisehistruenatureandskipfromtabletotable,hecanstilldobestofall,ascrimeincyberspaceillustrates.9.SoberandWilson1998.10.SeeFodor2007.PainedcorrespondencewascontinuedintheLondonReviewofBooks,byPhilipKitcher,StephenRose,JerryCoyne,TimLewensandmyself.11.Parker2003.12.DarwininhisnotebookperiodwasanenthusiasticreaderofHume,whichmaygosomewaytoaccountforthecongruitiesdescribedherebetweenDarwinianandHumeanapproaches.OnDarwin’sreadingofHume,seeRichards1987,106,109.13.Hume1748,SectionXII,para.22,206.14.Hume1748,SectionIX,para.6,168.15.Hume1739,II.iii.3,415.16.Hume1751,SectionVI,part1,125.17.Hume1985.18.Montesquieu1748.19.Hume1739,III.ii.12.ForafulleraccountseeBlackburn2004,ch.13.20.BrosnananddeWaal2003.21.Hume1751,Appendix3,171.22.Forexample,DavidLewis1969,3,allowsthatthetheoryofgames,whichprovidesthetechnicalheartofhisbook,isbut‘scaffolding’,andthetheoryofconventionthatemergesisineffectthatofHume.23.Hume1985(‘OftheOriginalContract’).24.Hume1739,III.ii.2,490;Hume1751,Appendix3,172.25.Bekoff1974,1977.26.Hume,1739,III.ii.2,49027.Nietzsche1887.28.Hauser2006.29.SeealsoSterelny(forthcoming).30.Hume1739,III.ii.7,535.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nphilipkitcher19GivingDarwinhisdueipolarperspectivesTwentieth-centuryattemptstoevaluatethephilosophicalsignifi-canceofDarwinismhavebeendominatedbyapairofpolarper-spectives.Atoneextremestandthosewhoinsistontheautonomyofphilosophyandwhoconclude,withtheearlyWittgenstein,that‘Darwin’stheoryhasnomoretodowithphilosophythananyotherhypothesisinnaturalscience.’1Attheotherextremearenaturalistswhomaintainthat‘nowthatweknow’thisorthatotherfactaboutthecosmos,thehumanbrain,or(mostpertinentlyforpresentpur-poses)theroleofnaturalselectioninhominidevolution,traditionalphilosophicalproblemsareeasilysolved.Eachopponentlivesofftheexcessesoftheother.Bothalsooverlookthepossibilitythatscien-tificideas,includingDarwin’s,mightplayauseful,butpartial,roleinavarietyofphilosophicaldiscussions.IthasprovedremarkablydifficulttogiveDarwinhisdue.PhilosophersdrawntotheWittgensteinianpoletypicallyassumethatthereareconceptsandmethodswhoseapplicationtophilo-sophicalquestionsisunaffectedbythedeliverancesofanyscience,evenasciencethatmighttransformideasaboutlifeandmind.Theirdiscussionsofquestionsinmetaphysics,epistemologyandethicstakeovertheidiomsinwhichtraditionalphilosophyhasposedthem,oftenwithoutappreciatingthefactthatthelanguagetheyem-ploywasdevelopedinresponsetoascientificpicturethathaslongbeensuperseded.Consider,forexample,thegroupofphilosophersmostinfluencedbytheyoungerWittgenstein,theViennaCircle.Theirattemptstoreformulatepartsofclassicalepistemologyasis-suesaboutthelogicalrelationsamongstatementstookforgranted455CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n456philipkitcherapsychologicalpicturethatemergedintheearlymodernperiod.FarfromfreeingthemselvesfromthepsychologicalassumptionsofLockeandHume,thelogicalpositivistsandtheirlogicalempiricistsuccessorssimplyburiedthoseassumptionsintheirframingofprob-lemsabout‘basicsentences’andthe‘observationalvocabulary’.2Nomoreplausibleistheviewthatinstant‘scientisation’ofoldphilosophicalproblemsleadsimmediatelytotheirsolutionordis-solution.Inafamouspassage,E.O.Wilsonclaimedthatthetimemighthavecomefor‘ethicstoberemovedtemporarilyfromthehandsofthephilosophersandbiologicized’.3Hissubsequentdiscus-sionsofthetopic,withtheirinadequateresponsetothedifficul-tiesofderivingnormativeconclusionsfromfactualpremises,onlyshowedthatWilsonhadnotappreciatedthedepthandrecalcitranceoftheproblemsofmoralphilosophy.Philosophershavesometimesbeentemptedbysimilargrandvisionsofconquestinthenameoftheirfavouritescience–particularlywhentheareatobeconqueredisthephilosophyofmindandthescienceissomecombinationoffragmentsfromtheneurosciences;althoughtheirventuresaresometimesmoresophisticatedthanWilson’s,theyfailforparallelreasons.Weshouldtreasurewhateverresourceswehave,wherevertheycomefrom.Iwanttoresistboththeanti-naturalismthatcelebratesthepurityofphilosophyandthehyper-naturalismthatdeniesthepossibilitythatgenuineinsightsmightbecapturedinlanguagein-fectedbyoutmodedscience,thusignoringthesubtletiesoftheprob-lemsatwhichitflourishesitsbravenewfindings.PhilosophersshouldfinditworthwhiletoreadHumeandDarwin,KantandEin-stein,DescartesandChomsky.Inwhatfollows,IwanttomakeaparticularcaseforbringingDarwinontothephilosophicalteam,notasthestarplayerwhowinsthedayallbyhimself,butasacon-tributortoamuchlargereffort.iimodestimplicationsDarwin’ssignificanceforphilosophyiscloudednotonlybythepolarisationI’vejustsketchedbutalsobythefactthatthereareatleastthreeDarwiniandoctrinesthatmaybeappliedtophilosophicalquestions.Firstishisinsistenceontheextentofvariationwithinnaturalpopulations.4SecondishisclaimthatalllivingthingsareCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGivingDarwinhisdue457relatedbydescentwithmodificationandhisuseofthisclaimtoexplainawidevarietyofbiologicalphenomena.Third,andsurelymostwellknown,isthethesisthat‘naturalselectionhasbeenthemainbutnotexclusivemeansofmodification’.5Asweshallsee,muchphilosophicaldiscussionhasbeenprovokedbythislastidea,bothbythosewhomaintainthatimportantaspectsofourcognitiveandemotionallivescanbefathomedbyviewingourmindsastargetsofnaturalselection,andbythosewhothinkthatthetheoryofnat-uralselectionprovidesamodelforbuildingexplanationsinother,philosophical,domains.Nowthesethreedoctrinesinspirearangeofphilosophicalinves-tigationsandconclusions,someofwhichseemtomefarmorewellgroundedthanothers.Themostvisibleventuresarethosethatmakeuseof‘Darwin’sdangerousidea’,thenotionofnaturalselection,at-temptingtoshowhowconceivingofourspeciesasaproductofnatu-ralselectionwillilluminateoldphilosophicalissues.6ButweshouldnotoverlookprojectsthatapplymorebasicDarwinianinsights.Consider,forexample,Darwin’semphasisonintra-specificvariation(whatErnstMayrhascalledDarwin’sreplacementof‘typologicalthinking’by‘populationthinking’).7Darwin’spointaboutvaria-tionoftengoesunappreciatedtodayinphilosophicaldiscussions,eventhoughithasbeenuncontroversialforwelloveracentury.Recentdiscussionsofnaturalkinds,promptedbytheseminalideasofSaulKripkeandHilaryPutnam,oftenassumethatonecanreviveessentialism.8Yetifspeciesarenaturalkindsnosuchrevivalisinprospect.KripkeandPutnamlargelyrestrictedtheirdiscussionstothecasesofelementsandcompounds,andwithgoodreason.For,giventheinsightsofneo-Darwinism,it’sclearthatthesearchforsomeanalogueofthemicrostructuralessencescan’tbefound.Nogeneticorkaryotypicpropertywillplayforspeciestherolethatatomicnumberdoesfortheelements.Darwin’santi-essentialistmessageisimportantforotherphilo-sophicaldiscussions,forexample,attemptstoprovideavalue-freeanalysisofhumannatureorhumanfunctioning.Facedwiththedifficultyofunderstandingwhatmakeshumanlivesgowell,somephilosophershavebeenattractedtoobjectivistaccountsofthehumangood:livesgowell,theysay,ifthelivesexemplifyparticularproperties,independentlyofthesubject’sdesiresorplans.Articu-latinganaccountofthistyperequiressomewayofmotivatingtheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n458philipkitcherspecificchoiceofpropertiesthatismade,andit’satthispointthatessentialismoffersinspiration.Foronemighttakethepropertiestobeexactlythosethatdevelop‘thehumanessence’.9Neo-Aristotelianeffortsfounder,however,onDarwin’scritiqueofessentialism.TheAristotelianrevivaldeclaresthatsomepropertiesofourselves–ourcapacityforrationaldeliberation,forexample–arepartofthehumanessence,andthatthedevelopmentoftheseisespeciallyvaluable.Unfortunately,notallmembersofourspeciessharethatcapacity,andtheessentialistclaimmustcometotermswithsadvariations.10Aswescrutinisethewaysinwhichthemoraltheorisingproceeds,itbecomesincreasinglyevidentthatsomevariantsarebeingdis-missedbeyondthepaleofhumanitybythetacitinvocationofvaluejudgements.Biologywon’tsupporttheclaimsthatthesepropertiestrulydevelopthehumanessence,and,ineffect,thetheoryofthegoodsimplyrecapitulatesmoraljudgementsthatweremadeatthebeginning.11It’simportantnottooverinterpretthisdebate,andtoconcludethatDarwin’sunderminingofessentialismrefutesobjectivismaboutthehumangood.Whatcollapsesisaparticularstrategyforarticu-latingobjectivism,onewhichrespondsdirectlytothereductionistchallengetoprovideacharacterisationoftheobjectivelygoodinalanguagethatrefersonlytobiologicalproperties(ortobiologicalandpsychologicalproperties).Iftheobjectivistdeniesthatthereduc-tivistchallengeneedstobemet,thenthefocusofdebateshiftstocomplexquestionsinmoralepistemologyonwhich,atleastprimafacie,Darwinismhaslittletosay.Weseehere,inminiature,asit-uationthatoftenobtainsintherelationbetweenDarwinismandphilosophicaldiscussion:Darwinianconsiderationsrevealthatanoptionwemighthavetakentobeavailableorastrategythatwemighthavepursuedisclosedoff;philosophicaldebateisadvanced,butnotended.I’vebeguninthisrelativelysmallandapparentlyunexcitingplacebecauseweoughttobeawareofsuchpartialsuccessesasweattendtotheambitionsofthosewhowouldbuildevolutionaryepistemolo-giesorfoundethicsonthedeliverancesofDarwinism.Toooften,theviewsderivedfromDarwinarewildextrapolationsfromthecoretenetsofcontemporaryevolutionarytheory.Thisismostev-identwhenthephilosophicalprojecttobeadvancedrequiresaclaimCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGivingDarwinhisdue459abouttheformofcomplexhumancapacitiesandthecandidateclaimrestsonallegationsaboutthehistoryofnaturalselectioninhominidevolution.iiisociobiology’ssirensongSincethecontroversyabouthumansociobiology,it’sbeenevidentthattheattempttoattributefaculties,dispositionsandformsofbehaviourtonaturalselectionisfraughtwithpitfalls.12Serioustheorisingaboutnaturalselectionrequiresassumptionsabouttherangeofgeneticvariation,viewsaboutwhichphenotypictraitsaregeneticallyordevelopmentallytiedtogether,understandingofthecomplexitiesoftheenvironment,detailedinvestigationsofthepossibilitiesofbuildingrivalmodels,and,inthecaseofhumanbeingsandotherprimatespecies,recognitionofthepossiblerolesplayedbyculturaltransmission.Insomesubfieldsofsociobiology–Ithinkparticularlyofthestudyofinsectbehaviour–meticulousfield-workandsophisticatedmathematicalmodellinghavegonehand-in-hand,yieldingenhancedunderstanding.13Bycontrast,instudiesofhumandispositionstobehaviour,grandconclusionshaveoftenbeenlaunchedonthesketchiestevidenceandhavedeployedqualitativeargumentswhoseshortcomingswererevealedatthefirsteffortsinformalisation.Chastenedbycriticismsofearlyhumansociobiology,manywhoareattractedtoaDarwinianprogrammeofstudyinghumanbe-haviour,whethertheycometoitfromphilosophy,fromanthropol-ogy,orfrompsychology,havedecidedtochangethenameoftheenterpriseandtodeclare,veryloudly,thattheyhaveacknowledgedtheerrorsoftheirpredecessors.14Yetrecentliteratureinevolution-arypsychology,someofwhichquickensphilosophicalpulses,haschangedremarkablylittle.Thefundamentalstrategyistocharac-terisehumanpsychologicalnaturebyexposingthewaysinwhichparticular‘modules’havebeenindividuallyfashionedbynaturalselection.Soweareinformedthattherearemodulesforwomen’sbeingattractedtomenwithresources,formen’sbeingattractedtowomenwithawaist–hipratioofaround0.7,andforbothsexestodetectsocialcheats.15Someoftheseconclusionshavelittlebear-ingonphilosophicaldiscussions,othersaretakentohaveimportCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n460philipkitcherforepistemologyandforethics.Iwanttooffersomebriefrea-sonsforscepticismaboutthewaysinwhichthisstrategyhasbeenundertakensofar.ThefirstpointtonoteisthatonecanadoptDarwinism,includ-ingtheclaimabouttheimportanceofnaturalselectioninevo-lutionarychange,withoutendorsinganysuchparticularconclu-sionsabouthowselectionhasactedonourspecies.There’snoforcedchoicebetweenacceptingtheevolutionarypsychologist’sfavouritecollectionofstoriesandrevertingtoCreationism.Second,oneshouldnotethattheprogrammeofevolutionarypsychology,withitscommitmenttoasinglehumanpsychologicalnature,isatoddswiththemodestDarwinianthemeofanti-essentialism–indeed,evolutionarypsychologyisdominatedbyatendencytowriteasiffrequency-dependentselectionandpolymorphismdidn’texist.Third,theclaimsabouttheoperationofnaturalselectionmayrestonmoresystematicevidencethanthosemadeintheheydayofhu-mansociobiology,buttheystillsharetheolddefectsbothoffailingtodevelopcarefulmathematicalmodelsandofignoringthepossibleimpactofculturaltransmission.Fourth,andtomymindmostim-portant,theconclusionstypicallypresupposeguessworkbothaboutthecharacterofthe(lightlysketched)savannahenvironmentandaboutthewaysinwhichphenotypictraitsarelinkedtogether.Ratherthanventuringintothesloughofevolutionarypsychol-ogy’sdepictionofhumansexualrelations,I’llexpressmydoubtsbyreferencetothestudythat’susually(andwithjustice)viewedasem-blematicofevolutionarypsychology,thehypothesis,advancedbyLedaCosmidesandJohnTooby:thathumanbeingshaveevolvednottohaveageneral-purposelogicalfacultybutacollectionofspe-cialisedmechanisms,includingonethatdetectsviolationsofsocialrules.16Theessentialsareasfollows.Thereisawell-knownpsychologi-calexperiment(theWasoncard-selectiontest)onwhichsubjectsdoverybadlywhentheproblemisposedinabstractform,andmuchbetterwhenitisrelatedtofamiliarsocialsituations.Thetestre-quiresidentifyingtheconditionsunderwhichageneralstatementwouldbeshownfalse.CosmidesandToobydocumenttheabilityofsubjectstodomuchbetterwhenthetaskcanbeunderstoodasamatterofdetectingviolationsinsocialrules.Theyhypothe-sisethatthissignalstheexistenceofaspecial-purposemodulethatCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGivingDarwinhisdue461evolvedunderpressuretoidentifycheatsintheancestralsavannahenvironment.Therearethreereasonstobesceptical.First,theabilitytoiden-tifycheatingwouldappeartobefavouredbynaturalselectionlongbeforeourancestors,ortheirprimaterelatives,reachedthestageofbeingabletoformulatelinguisticrulesandwonderabouttheirviola-tion.AsI’llsuggestbelow,thestandardwaysofconceivingtheearlyscenariosofcooperationonthesavannah(orintheforests)maybequiteinadequate–ourignoranceofthetypesofcooperationandofthedetailsoftheenvironmentsis,asDarwinwouldsay,‘profound’.Butinsofaraswehaveanygraspofthekindsofinteractionsthatwereimportantinthegenesisofsocialrelationsamongprimates,itseemsthatitmusthavebeenimportantforanimalstosurveytheirconspecificsandjudgewhetherotherswerecontinuingtoparticipateinajointventure.17Speculatively,wecanentertaintheideaofanadvantageobtainedbythoseanimalswhoseabilitiestoprocessorretaininformationweresuperior,andsuchdifferencesmightresultfromdifferencesingenotypesexpressedintheformsofneurotrans-mitters.Thespeculationintroducesmysecondpoint.It’sextraordinarilyimplausibletosupposethatnaturalselectioncouldhaveproducedadevicethatjustpromotedthedetectionofsocialcheating.Evolution-arypsychologistsmaynotliketotalkaboutgenes,but,assoonastheystarttodiscussnaturalselection,theyareuptotheireyebrowsingenetichypotheses.Iftherewasnaturalselectionforsocial-cheatdetectionthentheremusthavebeengeneticvariationinsomean-cestralpopulation;thisgeneticvariationmusteitherhavebeenex-pressedatthephenotypiclevelonlyintheabilitytodetectcheats,orelseinthatabilityandinothercharacteristicswhoseselectiveim-portanceistrivialbycomparison;otherwisethere’snotselectionforcheat-detection,butforasuiteoftraitsinwhichdetectingcheatsisonecomponent.Whenwerecallthatgeneticvariationusuallyproducesdifferencesinproteins,werecognisethattheentirestoryrestsonthenot-very-compellingideathatsomeproteindifferenceislocalisedinoneofthetwowaysjustmentioned.Wemightbeinclinedtoswallowthegenetichypothesisandtodis-regardmyfirstpointabouttheevolutionofsocial-cheat-detectiononthegroundsthatCosmidesandToobyhavethebestpsychologicalexplanationofthedata.Butthiswouldbeamistake.DespitetheirCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n462philipkitcherconsiderableingenuityinconstructingexperiments,CosmidesandToobyfailtoconsideranimportant(butbanal)rivalhypothesis.Thathypothesisclaimsthatwehaveageneral-purposelogicalabilitybutthatourlogicalreasoningworksbestonthetypesofproblemswithwhichwe’remostfamiliar.NowCosmidesandToobydospendagreatdealoftimeandtroubleincontrastingtheirownproposalwithwhattheytermthe‘familiarityhypothesis’.Buttherearetwoim-portantlydifferentversionsofthefamiliarityhypothesis,onlyoneofwhichhasbeenaddressedintheexperimentsthatCosmidesandToobysopainstakinglydevise.Atestmaybefamiliarorunfamil-iarbecausethesubjectis,orisnot,athomewiththecontentofthepropositionsintermsofwhichit’scouched.Alternatively,atestmaybefamiliarorunfamiliarbecausesubjectshave,orhavenot,doneproblemswiththatlogicalstructurebefore.18TheversionofthefamiliarityhypothesiswhichIproposefocusesonthissecondtypeoffamiliarity.PacePopper,thefalsificationofgeneralisationsisn’tsomethinginwhichpeoplemuchengageoutsideofacademicdisputesandoneveryspecialcontext,towitoureverydaycheckingofbreachesofrules.ThusIproposethatwehaveageneralisedabil-itytodologic,thatitisexpressedintermsofourabilitytosolveproblemswithstructuresthatrecurfrequentlyinourlives(oronwhichwe’vebeentrained),andthattheeffectsthatCosmidesandToobyseeresultfromacommonplacefactthatfalsificationproblemsonlyariseformanypeopleinsocialcontexts.GiventheDarwiniandifficultiesoftheirpreferredhypothesis,thebalanceofevidenceshouldfavourmysuggestion,mundaneandboringthoughitundoubtedlyis.IhavegoneintoalittledetailbecauseIwanttocontrasttwostrategiesforgeneratingDarwinianinsightsinphilosophy.One,thatIcommend,remainsclosetothecoredoctrinesofDarwinism,thethreeclaimsaboutvariation,descentwithmodificationandtheim-portanceofnaturalselectionasacauseofevolutionarychange.Theother,whichneedstobeundertakenwithcautionbyenthusiastsandscrutinisedcloselybythosetowhomtheyannouncetheirfindings,attemptstoadvancespecificclaimsaboutthewaysinwhichnatu-ralselectionhasmouldedhumanpropensities,and,onthisbasis,toresolvetraditionalphilosophicalproblems.Inprinciple,thereisnobartoilluminatinghumanbehaviourandpsychologicalpropensitiesbyemployingtheperspectiveofnaturalselection,butit’simportantCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGivingDarwinhisdue463torecognisejusthowonerousarethedemandsofdoingthisinaresponsiblefashion.19ivdarwinianepistemologySowhatcanwegleanfromDarwin?Inthenextsections,I’lllookatwaysinwhichcentraltenetsofDarwinismmightofferinsightsforepistemologyandforethics.Let’sstartwiththetheoryofknowl-edge,assumingthattheDarwinianepistemologistavoidsthetrap(describedinthelastsection)oftryingtogenerateanaccountofourcognitivepropensitiesfromsomefancifuladaptationiststory.Manyphilosophershavebeeninspiredbythethoughtthathu-manknowledgemightconformtoabstractversionsoftheprinci-plesthatgovernthehistoryoflife.Theideacantakeastrongeroraweakerform.Intheweakerversionnomoreissupposedthantheevolutionofhumanknowledge–wearetothinkofknowledgeashistoricalprocessandhistoricalproduct,andinvitedtothinkofwaysofcharacterisingthestatesofknowledgeatvarioustimes,thekindsoftransitionsamongsuchstates,andthecausalfactorsthatpromoteorretardtransitionsofspecifictypes.20Thestrongerform,‘evolutionaryepistemology’asit’susuallyknown,insistsonamuchcloseranalogybetweenDarwin’saccountofthehistoryoflifeandthegrowthofknowledgeeitherintheindividualorinthespecies.I’llconsidertwoversions.Ononeofthese,prominentinthewrit-ingsofDonaldCampbell,theindividual’sknowledgeisconceivedassomethinglikeaDarwinianprocess.21Ideasarerandomlygen-eratedandtestedbyexperience.Thosethatareretainedarethosethatsurvivetheprocessofselection.Asecondapproach,originallypresentedbyRichardDawkins,supposesthatthereareanaloguesoftheentitieswhosetransmissionmeasuresthecourseofevolution.Justastherearegenes,andjustasevolutionisrecordedinchangesinthefrequencyofalleles,sotootherearememes,andthegrowthofknowledgeinthespeciesisunderstoodintermsofthespreadofmemes.22Insofaraseitheroftheseproposalsislikelytoilluminateepiste-mologicalquestions,itwillbebecausethetheoristisabletoun-derstandthosepartsofthegrowthofknowledgethatareeithernon-Darwinianorelsefalloutsidethescopeoftheanalogy.Considerfirsttheuseofevolutionaryepistemologytounderstandanindividual’sCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n464philipkitchercognitiveaccomplishments.Wemayconcedethatthereareocca-sionsinwhichnovelconceptsandpropositionsarerandomlygener-ated,andthatthereisasenseinwhichthetestingofideasislikeaprocessofnaturalselection.Yetit’salsopertinenttonotethatthereareotherproceduresthroughwhichpeopledevelopnewnotionsandtheses.Wereasonfromourpriorbeliefs,generalisingandusinganalo-gies(indeed,thisisevidentintheprocessofgeneratingevolutionaryepistemologyitself!).Hencetheprocessofgenerationisn’tmuchlikerandommutationintheDarwinianstoryaboutlife.Further,iftheevolutionaryepistemologistproposesthattheprocessestowhichI’vealludedareanaloguesofrecombination,weshouldpointoutthatthoseprocessesdon’tconsistintheswappingofbitsandpiecesofantecedentpropositions.Tomaketheanalogywork,onewouldneedadetailedaccountofjustwhattheformsofthe‘recombina-tion’are,andthisrequiresengagingalltheseriousepistemologicalproblemsofunderstandingmethodsofdiscovery.Norcanwegainmuchinsightintoindividualknowledgebyliken-ingthetestingofideastoaselectionregime.Tosupposethatpropo-sitionsaugmenttheirfitnesswhentheyoccurincomplexesthatpredictclaimswediscovertobetrue,andlosefitnesswhentheyarefoundinclustersthatgenerateexpectationsthatareunsatisfied,onlysubstitutesabiologicalvocabularyformorefamiliaridiomsinconfirmationtheory.Theproblemsofunderstandingthegainsandlossesin‘fitness’withanyprecisionremainjustastheywerewhenweposedthemintermsofconfirmationandfalsification.Allthathasbeenaddedisamisleadingsuggestionaboutthelinkbetweensuccessinaregimeoftestsandtheproliferationof‘copies’or‘de-scendants’ofbeliefs,whichseemstomakelittlesensewithinthecontextofindividualepistemology.Mattersaresomewhatbetter,Ithink,whenwetrytoapplyDarwinianideastoproblemsinsocialepistemology.Althoughweshouldbecautiousinsupposingthatthetransmissionofcultureacrossthegenerationscanbeconceivedintermsof‘culturalatoms’,analoguesofthegenes,thereareinstancesinwhichtheDawkinsiannotionofamemeissuggestive.Consider,forexample,thespreadofChristianityacrosstheRomanEmpire.Insofaraswecanestimatethenumbersofbelieversinmajorcitiesatvarioustimesinthefirstthreecenturies,thegrowthcurvetakesthesigmoidalshapefamiliarfrompopulationecology.Conceivably,onecouldinvestigatethisprocessCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGivingDarwinhisdue465fromtheperspectiveofevolutionaryepidemiology,usingthekindsofmodelsthatareavailableforstudyingtheinvasionofpopulationsbypathogens.Althoughtheworkhasnotyetbeendone,successinthisventurewouldobviouslyinspireeffortstofindanaloguesoftheparametersthatappearinthemodels.WemightthusdiscoversomethingabouttheflexibilityofChristiandoctrinebycomparisonwithitsreligiousrivalsbyusinganalogieswithmutationorwithvirulence.23Inindicatingpossibilitiesofthiskind,Iemphaticallydon’twanttoclaimmorethanthatDarwinianthinkingaboutthespreadofideascanofferusaperspectiveonhistoricalprocessesthatmayormaynotproveapplicabletostudiesofchangeofbelief.Theultimatetestwillbewhetherwecandojusticetothephenomenaintheirfullcomplexity.Darwinsuppliesuswithsometools.There’snoreasontoinsist,inadvance,thattheymustbeapplicableorthattheyexhaustthearsenalweneed.MypragmaticopportunismaboutusingDarwinianideasinepis-temologycanbeillustratedbyaclusterofprojectsI’vecommendedelsewhere.Scientificenquiryisasocialphenomenon.Henceweshouldnotsimplyfocusonthewaysinwhichindividualbeliefsarejustified,butalsoenquireaboutthewaysinwhichindividualeffortsareorganisedsoastopromotetheknowledgeofthecom-munity.Givenaparticulartypeofepistemicpredicament,wecanconsiderwhichdistribution(s)ofgroupendeavourswouldyieldthebestchancesofsuccessandwecantheninvestigatewhetherspec-ifiedsocialinstitutionsandindividualmotivationswouldleadthecommunitytowardsorawayfromtheoptimum(a).Tociteanexam-pleI’vediscussedindetail,ifthereareseveralmethodsforpursuingaparticularenquirythen,undersomecircumstances,thebestcom-munitypolicyistoexploremorethanoneapproach,eventhoughonemethodwouldstandoutaspreferableifjustonepersonweretobeassignedtheproblem;moreover,itcanbeshownthatmotiva-tionsandsocialarrangementsthatmighthaveseemedantitheticaltothepursuitoftruthbringthecommunityquiteclosetothepre-ferreddivisionoflabour.24Problemsofthistypearesimilarinsomerespectstothosearisinginevolutionaryecology,andthemathemat-icalformalismsdevelopedthereproveusefulintheepistemologicalcontext.Thustheepistemologistcanborrowtoolsforgedbyevo-lutionarybiologists,but,asI’veemphasised,thisbringswithitnoCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n466philipkitchercommitmenttoamoreglobalvisionofthegrowthofknowledgeasaDarwinianprocess.ThechiefDarwinianmoralforepistemologyis,Ithink,connectedwithamorebasicevolutionarytheme.Asnumerouscommenta-torshavenoted,Darwin’scommitmenttotheideaofdescentwithmodificationresonateswiththebroadclassofnineteenth-centuryproposalstounderstandfacetsofthecontemporaryworldasprod-uctsofhistory.25Historicisminepistemologydoesn’tneedtorestonDarwiniangrounds,butanevolutionaryperspectiveoffersahealthyantidotetothediseaseofsynchronismthatoftenbesetsphilosoph-icaleffortstoexplainhumanknowledge.FromDescartestothepresent,generationsofepistemologistshavewrittenasthoughthecentralproblemistouncoverastructureofjustificationinanin-dividual’sbeliefsthatidentifiesspecialwarrantingrelationsonlyamongthebeliefsthemselvesorbetweenparticularbeliefsandtheindividual’sexperiences.Afarmorerealisticpicturewouldidentifytheindividualaspartofacommunity,fromwhichmuchisabsorbed,mostofitnevertobeseriouslyqueried,andtoviewthatcommunityasonestageinahistoricallineage.26Perplexitiesaboutparticulartypesofknowledgethusgivewaytoattemptstounderstandhowthepertinentpropositionscametobeincorporatedwithinthesetpassedonbythetradition.Further,wecanlooktoDarwinandtothetheoristswhohavesucceededhimforcluesabouthowtorepre-sentthestatesofcommunityknowledgeatparticulartimesandthetransitionsamongthem.Consider,forexample,ourknowledgeofmathematics.Epistemol-ogistswhoareweddedtotheprojectofsynchronicreconstructionofanindividual’sbeliefshaveexploredmanypossiblesourcesforthewaysinwhichourfundamentalmathematicalbeliefsarejustified(and,ofcourse,theyhavedifferedintheirchoicesaboutwhicharethefundamentalbeliefs).Appealstoknowledgegroundedingraspofconceptsandtoprocessesofintuitionhavebeenperenniallypopular.Giventhewell-knowndifficultieswithbothsortsofexplanation,theyappearascounselsofdespair,especiallywhenviewedfromaDarwinian,ormoregenerally,fromahistoricistperspective.Whynotsaytheobviousthings?27Ourknowledgeofmathematicsrestsonthetestimonyofthosewhotaughtus.Collectively,mathematicalknowledgeevolvesassuccessivecommunitiesofmathematiciansre-spondtothemathematicstheyhaveinheritedandtotheproblemsCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGivingDarwinhisdue467bequeathedtothembynaturalscientists.Theultimaterootsofthetraditionlieinrelativelyprimitivemanipulationsoftheenviron-ment,carriedoutbyourremotepredecessorsinIndia,Babylon,Egyptandperhapsinsitesofwhichweareignorant.Inthecourseofthesubsequenthistory,mathematicianshavebeengivenaveryspecialrole,licensedtodevisenewlanguagesthatrelateinwaystheyfindinterestingandilluminatingtothecorpustheyhaveinherited.Thedemarcationofthatroleitselfrepresentsadiscoveryaboutcommu-nityenquiry,towitthatitisgoodforotherinvestigationsthattherolebefilled.Historicism,torepeat,isnotspecificallyDarwinian.ButDarwinprovidedoneofthemostsuccessfulandelaborateschemesofhistor-icalexplanation,andisbothinspirationandresourceforhistoricistprogrammes.Sinceepistemologycanbenefitfromhistoricism,itcanlearnfromDarwin.vdarwinianethics?IturnnowtotheareainwhichthesignificanceofDarwinianideashasbeenmosthotlydebated.DoesDarwinismrevealhowhumansocietiesoughttobeconstructed,orhowhumanbeingsoughttobehave?Doesitfinallydebunkmorality?Orisitsimplyirrelevanttoourunderstandingofmorality?Eminentscholarscanberecruitedinsupportofalltheobviousresponses.Sowhatexactlyistherela-tionshipbetweenevolutionarytheoryandethics?Let’sstartwithasimpleanswer.28Therearemanydifferentprojectsrelatingevolutionarybiologytoethics,someofwhichareperfectlysensible,othersflawed.Thehyper-Darwinianambitionistoshowhowourunderstandingofthehistoryoflifeyieldsnewba-sicmoralprinciples.Somewhatlessambitiously,onemightcontendthatDarwinismsupportssomedistinctivemetaethicalview,thatitshows,forexample,thatmoraljudgementscannothavetruth-valuesorthatmoralknowledgeisimpossible.Muchmoremodestly,wecanseetheevolutionaryunderstandingofourspeciesasrelevanttothetracingofallaspectsofhumanhistory,includingthehis-toryofourmoralityandsocialsystems.Finally,onemightsupposethatrecognitionofthekinshipoflife,coupledwithmoralprinci-pleswealreadyhold,enablesustoarriveatnewderivativemoraljudgements–perhapswecometounderstandourselvesashavingCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n468philipkitcherobligationsnottotreatotheranimalsinparticularways.Thesimpleanswerproposesthatthefirsttwooftheseventuresareillegitimate,whilethelattertwoarewellgrounded.Thisseemsatleastthree-quartersright.Althoughproposalstode-rivesubstantivenewethicalprinciplesascorollariesofDarwinismsometimesacknowledgethefamiliardifficultyofinferringnorma-tivestatementsfromfactualstatements,theyfailtoshowhowsuchinferenceswork.Whetherthewould-beevolutionaryethicistadvertsto(speculationsabout)‘evolvedhumannature’orto‘thefundamen-talcharacteroflife’,it’salwayslegitimatetoaskwhetherweoughttoacquiesceinthepropensitiesattributedtousortoaspiretotheendsthataresingledout.Ontheotherhand,theprojectofusingwhatweknowabouthominidevolutiontoinformouraccountofthehistoryofhumanmorality(orofhumansocieties)seemsper-fectlyjustified,and,insimilarfashion,thereisnobaragainstusingempiricalinformation,inconjunctionwithnormativeprinciples,tojustifyfurthernormativeclaims.Sothefirst,thirdandfourthpartsoftheresponsewithstandscrutiny.Whatismoreproblematic–andmoreinteresting–istheclaimabouttheirrelevanceofDarwinformetaethics.TowardstheendofPrincipiaEthicaG.E.Mooredeclaresthattheonlytwothingsthatareoffundamentalvaluearepersonalre-lationsandbeautifulthings.29ScepticsmightwonderhowMoorecouldknowthatthisisso,andtheirqualmswouldn’tbeassuagedbyhismurkyreferencesto‘non-naturalproperties’and‘intuitions’.Mindfuloftheepistemologicalpointsmadeinthelastsection,wemightrecallthatMoore’sjudgementistheresponseofanexcep-tionalthinkertoveryparticularcircumstances:Moore,broughtupinlateVictorianEngland,considersthenatureofgoodnessfromhisroomsinabeautifulcity,doubtlessrecallinghisownexperiencesoffriendship.Appealsto‘intuition’arethelastresortofthosewhodenytherelevanceofMoore’spersonalhistory.Weunderstandhisjudgementbetterifweseeitasareactiontotheviewsheacquiredinchildhood,temperedbyhisexperiencesandhisreflectionsuponthem.Likethecreativemathematician,Mooreextendsandmodifiesthepracticethathispredecessorsbequeathedtohim,but,ifwearetomakeclearthestatusofhismoraljudgements,wehavetorecogniseboththerationaleforhisownamendmentsandthehistoricalprocessthatformedthebackdroptohisowneducation.IfMooreisjustified,CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGivingDarwinhisdue469thenwewon’tfindthejustificationinasynchronicreconstructionofhisbeliefs,butinagenealogyofmoralsthatleadstohim.Thisexampleisintendedtorevealthattheconnectionbe-tweenthesecondenterprise(Darwinianreformsinmetaethics)andthethird(tracingthehistoryofourmoralattitudes)ismoreinti-matethanwemighthavethought.30Wecan’tsimplyassumethatahistoricalinvestigationwillleaveeverythinginplace.Foritmightturnoutthatourreconstructedgenealogywasdifficult,evenimpos-sible,tosquarewiththeviewthatshiftsinmoralattitudesembodieddiscoveries.Thedetailsofthestorymightmakeusunabletoseehowsuccessivetransformationscouldbegainsinmoralknowledge.Inresponsetohyper-Darwinism’sclaimtodrawnormativemoralconclusionsfromevolutionarypremises,it’seasytoswingtotheWittgensteinianpoleandcontendthatthecentralquestionsofnor-mativeethicsandmetaethicsmustbetackledinpurelyphilosoph-icalterms.Notonlydothose‘purelyphilosophicalterms’typicallyfailtoacknowledgetheimportanceofhistoricisminepistemology,buttheyalsoareladenwithpsychologicalassumptionsthatwe’veinheritedfromtheeighteenthcentury.Withoutdenyingthegenuineinsightsofcontemporarymoralphilosophy,it’spossibletoenvis-agethattheidiominwhichtheyarecouchedmightneedreforminthelightofbetterviewsaboutourpsychologicalcapacities,andthattheresultmightenableustoadoptdifferentpositionsfromthosethatcomprisethecurrentmenuofoptions.Therestofthissectionwillexplore,speculatively,thepossibili-tiesatwhichI’vegestured.Supposewetrytotellastoryabouttheemergenceofhumanmorality.Whatmightitlooklike?I’llbeginfromoneofthemostcelebratedproblemsintheevo-lutionarystudyofbehavior,theproblemofaltruism.Biologists,ofcourse,takealtruisticbehaviourtoconsistinactivitiesthatbenefitanotherorganismatcosttotheagent,wherebothcostandbene-fitaremeasuredintheDarwiniancurrencyofreproduction.Modelsofkinselectionandofreciprocalaltruism,usuallyunderstoodinthelasttwentyyearsintermsofevolutionarygametheoryappliedtoiteratedPrisoner’sDilemma,havedemonstratedpossibilitiesforsustaining,andinsomeinstances,originatingaltruisminthisbarebiologicalsense.31Farmoreimportanttomoralphilosophy,how-ever,isaricherconceptionofaltruismthatinvolvesrecognitionoftheneedsofothersandresponsesdirectedatfulfillingthoseneeds.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n470philipkitcherInpreviouswork,bothElliottSoberandIhaveargued,ondifferentgrounds,thatnaturalselectionpermitstheevolutionofthisrichersortofaltruism.32Unfortunately,asprimatologistshaveprovidedricherdescriptionsofthebehaviourofourevolutionarilyclosestrelatives,it’sbecomeevidentthatthemodelsconstructedtounderstandtheevolutionofpsychologicalaltruismarequiteunrealistic.33Commonchim-panzeesandbonobosactverydifferentlyfromthestrategiesthatthe-oristsattributetoaltruists;inparticular,theyarefrequentlymuchlessconcernedtopunishdefectionsthanthey‘ought’tobe.Ipro-posethatourevolutionarytheorisingaboutaltruismhassubstitutedmathematicallytractablegamesforthecomplexmany-agentinter-actionsthatareomnipresentinthesociallivesofhigherprimates.Thecentralproblemforayoungsocialprimateistobeacceptedaspartofastablecoalition,andthereisgoodreasontobelievethattheselectionpressurearisingfromthisproblemfavoursablindandrel-ativelynon-punitivedispositiontoaidparticular‘friends’.Naturalselection,then,mayhavefosteredthedevelopmentofcapacitiesforsympathy.Yetit’sclearfromstudiesofchimpanzeesocialbehaviourthatthosecapacitiesarefarfromlimitless.Insituationswherelargeevolutionaryrewardsareatstake,propensitiestoallywithanotheranimalcanbeoverriddenbyselfishaspirations.34Onepossibleviewofchimpanzee(andbonobo)sociallifeisthatit’sabattlegroundofconflictingtendencies,someofthemaltruistic(intheinterestingpsychologicalsense)andsomeofthemself-interested.Theconflictproducesfrequentrupturesinthesocialfabric,andtheconstantbreaking-upmakeswayforconstantmaking-up.Becausetheworkofsocialrepairissocostlyandthesympatheticdispositionssolim-ited,ourevolutionaryrelativescanonlymanagesocietiesofalimitedsize.Extendthesespeculationsonestepfurther.Somewhereinhomi-nidevolutionweacquiredtheabilitytoliveinlargersocialgroups.Howdidwedoit?Onepossibilityisthat,withtheacquisitionoflanguagecamealsoanabilitytoprescriberulesforourselvesandtoobeythem.Insteadofthemeleeofcompetingtendenciesthatmake´chimpanzee/bonobosocialitysofragile,weevolvedarudimentarypsychologicalfacultyofnormativeguidance.PerhapstheprimitiverulesbywhichourancestorsgovernedthemselveswerethekindsofkinshipregulationsstillrecordedbyanthropologistswhovisittheCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGivingDarwinhisdue471contemporaryhumanswhoseenvironmentsmostresemblethoseofthedistantpast.Proto-moralitymighthavebegunfromtheinjunc-tiontoactwiththeclan,andtheevolutionaryadvantageofguid-ingbehaviourbyproto-moralitymighthaveconsistedinitsyieldingamoreefficienttamingofsociallydisruptivetendenciesthanthatachievedbyourevolutionaryrelatives.Howdowetracearoutefromproto-moralitytoMoore’srefinedreflections?Ifanythingisclear,it’ssurelythatanysuchhistoricalprocesswouldbelargelysubjecttonon-Darwinianforces.Culturaltransmissionandculturalselectionwillhavebeentheprominentshapersofthemodifications.Thehistoricalchallengeofextendingthestoryrequiresustodojusticetothegreattransformationsthathaveobviouslyoccurredintheconstructionofsystemsofmoralrules,asourancestorscametotermswithothergroups,fashionedsocietiesinwhichindividualswereassigneddistinctroles,recog-nisedtheequalcapacitiesofhumanbeingswithdifferentpheno-types,andsoforth.Inoutline,wecanviewmoralityasahumanphenomenonthatentersourhistoryasadeviceforregulatingtheconflictbetweenoursympatheticandselfishdispositions(whereregulationplaysakeyroleinthemaintenanceofoursocieties)andisfurtherarticulatedthroughinteractionsamongdifferentsocialgroupsandmembers’reflectionsonthoseinteractions.Whatstatusthisassignstoourmoralclaimsdepends,Isuggest,onthedetailsofthestory,andthedetailsrequiremuchmoreresearchinevolu-tionarybiology,anthropology,psychologyandhistorythananyonehasyetattempted.Nonetheless,itoughttobeevidentthatthiskindofhistoryispotentiallyrelevanttometaethicalquestions,andthatwecannotneatlyseparateprojectsinthemannerthatmyoriginalsimpleanswerproposed.EverythingIhavesaidabouttheevolutionandhistoryofmoralityisadmittedlyconjectural.Mysentencesarepepperedwith‘might’and‘possibility’,sometimesitalicised,todrawattentiontothefactthatthisisastoryawaitingevidence.AnyattempttogofurtherandtoexploretheintricaciesofthehistoryshouldbeheldtothesamestandardsasthoseIproposedinthethirdsection,inthecaseofevo-lutionarypsychology.AsIpointedoutthere,usingargumentsabouttheactionofnaturalselectiontoarriveatclaimsaboutpsychologicalfacultiesandpropensitiesisalwaysvulnerabletoalternativeexpla-nations.Thus,eveniftheaccountIhavesketchedwereelaboratedmorefully,itwouldbeappropriatetobeginfromtheclaimthatCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n472philipkitcherthisisanexplanationofhowhumanmoralitymighthaveevolved.Ofcourse,themorephenomenathatcanbeassembledwithinthepurviewoftheexplanation,themoreconstraintsaregeneratedforpotentialrivals–this,afterall,wasDarwin’sargumentativeachieve-mentintheOrigin.35vidarwinianeugenics?Sofar,IhavepaidlittleattentiontothepossibilitythatDarwinianideasmighthelpusindealingwithissuesofappliedethics.HereitisusefultoconsideranexamplethatisbecomingassalientforusasitwasforDarwin’syoungercontemporaries.Darwin’scousin,FrancisGalton,wasonlyoneofmanywhosawtheirnewawarenessofhumanhistoryasofferingnewmoralimperatives.Theeugenicsmovementwasbornoftheideathatactualculturalpracticesmayshifttheregimeofhumanselectioninwaysthatdetractfromthehumangood.Eugenicistsmaydisagreeintheirvisionsofwhatcon-stitutesthehumangood,but,withintheirmoralsystems,theycould–andcan–adaptDarwinianideastodrawmoralconclusions.Howeverreluctantwearetousethename,westandatthebe-ginningofnewventuresineugenics.Oncewehavetheopportunitytoidentifytheprobabilitiesthatpeopleyetunbornwillhavepartic-ulartraits,thenweareforcedtomakeeugenicdecisions:foreventhedecisionnottoactonthebasisofsuchinformationreflectsapreferenceforcertaintypesoflives.36Eugenicpracticesdifferinthequalityoftheinformationtheyuse,inthetargetpopulationandthetargetcharacteristics,and,mostimportantly,inthefreedomwithwhichcouples(orindividuals)canmakereproductivedecisions.TheHumanGenomeProjectwillofferthousandsofpre-nataltestswithinthenextdecadeorso;providedequalaccesstotestsisguaranteed,itappearstoleadnaturallytoautopianeugenics,inwhichcoupleswillbefreetousegeneticinformationindecidingwhethertocon-tinueortoterminateanascentlife.Prospectiveparentswillhave(weassume)first-classinformation,and,farfrombeingcoercedintopursuingsomesociallydictatedprogramme,theywillbeabletotakestepstoavoidbringingintotheworldachildwithcharacteristicsthattheywouldregardasunfortunate.Utopianeugenicsissurelybenigninthemostdramaticcases.TheincidenceofTay-Sachsdiseasehasbeenreduced,world-wide,toCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGivingDarwinhisdue473about1percentofitsformervalue,thankstoahumaneprogrammeofpre-nataltesting.Atthesametime,thecreationoffacilitiesforpre-nataltestinghasenabledpeopleinsomeAsiancountriestodiscoverthesexofafoetusandtoterminateunwantedfemalepregnancies.Whetherornottherearestrongcausalrelationsbetweenparticularallelesandformsofbehaviour,thecomingyearswillsurelybringallsortsofcorrelationalclaims:thoseinterestedinmarketingtestswillbeabletoofferprobabilisticpredictionsaboutsuchthingsassexualorientation,body-build,temperamentandacademicperfor-manceinchildrenrearedincommonenvironments.37Shouldgeneticteststhatbearonthesetraitsbeusedinourcomingeugenicpractices?Anaturalresponsetothequestionistodeclarethatusingsomekindsofpre-nataltestsismorallyjustified,butthatusingothersisnot:wearerighttotrytoavoidthedreadfuldegenerationoftheTay-Sachschild,butwearequitewrongtonarrowthevisionofhumanitytoasmallrangeof‘acceptable’phenotypes.SomemayeventhinkthatthereisasoundDarwinianargumentbehindthisresponse.Afterall,weknowthatspeciesthatdepletethestockofgeneticvariationaremorevulnerabletoextinction.Agoodevolutionarystrategyforuswouldthereforebetomaintainthe(limited)geneticvariabilityofHomosapiens.Thislineofreasoning,likeotherambitiousDarwin-isingthathaseruptedinprevioussections,isflawed.Howeverweconceiveofthegoodforhumanbeings,noneofusissimplyanin-strumentforthesurvivalofthespecies,agenotypetobekeptaroundintheinterestsofpreservingsomeexoticgeneticvariant.Individuallivesmatter,andthecharacterofthoseindividuallivesoughttobethefocusofourreproductivedecisions.AmoreseriousapplicationofDarwinianideasinthepresentcon-textistoreveal,onceagain,theproblemsofsuperficiallyattractivewaysofreactingtoourpredicament.Considerthesimpleproposalthateugenicinterventionsarejustifiedincasesinwhichthechild-to-bewouldbeathighriskforsomediseaseordisability.Thatproposalevidentlyrequiresapriorunderstandingoftheconceptofdisease(for,asthehistoryofmedicineremindsus,allkindsofsociallyun-welcometraitshavebeenviewedasdiseases).Thosewhohopetoshort-circuitdiscussionsofvaluesmaytry,atthispoint,toarticu-latea‘value-free’conceptionofdisease,suggestingthatdiseasesoc-curwhensomeorganorsystemfailstodischargeitsproperfunction.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n474philipkitcherTheireffortswillsucceedonlytotheextentthattheycananalysethenotionoffunctionwithoutappealingtojudgementsofvalue,anditisherethatDarwinentersthepicture.For,accordingtoawidelyac-ceptedaccount,thefunctionofanentityistobeidentifiedwiththeeffectforwhichitwasselected.38FunctionsaretacticsusedagainstDarwin’shostileforces.39Wecannowsee,Ithink,whythesimpleproposalwillnotdo.TheobjectivenotionofdiseaseisfoundedontheDarwinianconceptoffunction,butthatnotionofdiseasecannotdothemoralworktheproposaldemandsofit.Whatmatterstousinassessinghumanlives,includingthosecurrentlyinprospect,arethepossibilitiesforthepeoplewhoselivestheyare,andthosepossibilitiesmaybearlittlerelationtothechallengesandresponsesofancientenviron-ments.Evenifhumanreproductivesystemswereshapedbynaturalselectiontoproducemanymoreoffspringthanpeopleactuallydo,weshouldnotregardquestionsaboutourgoalsinlifeassomehowsettledbyremindingusofsuchfunctions.Anobjective,Darwinian,accountofdiseaseisofnohelp,preciselybecauseitgroundsoureugenicdiscussionsinfactsaboutourevolutionaryhistorythatareexternaltoourgoalsforourselves.Plainly,Ihavenottriedtosettlethehardquestionsaboutthecomingeugenics.Myaimhasbeen,rather,toillustratethewaysinwhichourDarwinianunderstandingofourselvescanenterdiscus-sionsinappliedethics.Ihavetriedbothtoexposetheunambitiouswaysinwhichsuchunderstandingcanpromoteclarity,andalsotorevealthedangersofoverreaching.viidarwin’sdueInafamous,and,tomymind,accuratedescriptionofthediscipline,WilfridSellarsproposedthat‘philosophyisthestudyofhowthings,inthebroadestsenseoftheterm,hangtogether,inthebroadestsenseoftheterm’.40Philosophersworkintheintersticesofotherpeople’slinesofbusiness.Theirtask,andtheiropportunity,istofittogetherpiecesoftheenormousfabricofhumanachievement.Be-causeDarwin’saccountofthehistoryoflifeissolargeandimportantapartofthatfabric,itmustberelevanttophilosophicalventures.Yet,forreasonsatwhichI’vegesturedthroughoutthisessay,therearemajordifficultiesinapplyingDarwinianideasinallthedomainsCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGivingDarwinhisdue475thatexcitehisepigones.Moreover,asI’veinsisted,Darwin’sgreatachievementdoesn’tmakeallotherconsiderationsanddisciplinesirrelevant,and,inparticular,itshouldn’tleadustodismissthepo-tentialinsightsofpre-Darwinianphilosophising.Thehistoryofenquiry,includingthehistoryofwhatwecall‘Phi-losophy’,bequeathstousalargenumberofhardproblems.Howarewetounderstandwhat,ifanything,isdistinctivelyhuman?Whatistheplaceofmindinphysicalnature?Whatistheextent,andwhatarethelimitsofhumanknowledge?Whatisourbasisformakingthemoralclaimsthatwedo?Ourabilitytoposetheselargerquestionsinsharpandfruitfulwaysevolvesaswelearnmorefromtheinvestiga-tionsofnaturalscientists,and,sometimes,scientificenquiryallowsustoresolveasmallerconundrumthattroubledourpredecessors(recallthewayinwhichstudiesofcontinuityandconvergencehavehelpedusrespondtoZeno’sparadoxes).Withthehardestquestions,however,whatthesciencesseemtoofferusispartialclarification,notcompletesolution.ThepolarperspectiveswithwhichIbeganex-pecteithereverythingornothing,and,intheirdifferentways,theyoverlookwhatgreatscientificadvances,likeDarwin’s,cangenuinelyoffer.Myrecommendationsforapplyingevolutionaryideaswithinphi-losophyare,Itrust,obviousfrommyillustrativeexamples,andtheirprevailingcharacterisoneofcautiousexploration.Ihopetorecap-tureaphilosophicalmiddle-groundthatseemsinconstantdangerofvanishing.Darwindeserveshisdue,neithermorenorless.notesIamverygratefultoDanDennett,OwenFlanaganandespeciallytheeditorsfortheirconstructiveadviceaboutearlierversionsofthischapter.1.Wittgenstein[1922]1961,4.1122.2.PhilipKitcher1993a,61–3.3.E.O.Wilson1975,562.4.E.Mayr1976,1991.5.C.Darwin[1859]1964,6.6.Dennett1995.7.E.Mayr1976.8.Kripke1980andPutnam1975;seealsoDupre´1981andSober,thisvolume.9.Hurka1993.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n476philipkitcher10.Hull1986.11.PhilipKitcher1999.12.Lewontin,RoseandKamin1984;PhilipKitcher1985a.13.PhilipKitcher1985a,ch.5.14.R.Wright1994,150.15.Barkow,CosmidesandTooby1992andBuss1994.16.Barkow,CosmidesandTooby1992,163–228;forcogentcriticism,seeLloyd1999.17.PhilipKitcher1993b.18.Kuhn1970,189–90.19.PhilipKitcher1990.20.Kuhn1970;Lakatos1970;L.Laudan1977;PhilipKitcher1993a.21.D.Campbell1974.22.Dawkins1976,ch.11.23.Stark1996;PhilipKitcher2001.24.PhilipKitcher1993a,ch.8.25.PatriciaKitcher1992.26.PhilipKitcher1993c.27.PhilipKitcher1983,2000.28.PhilipKitcher1994.29.G.E.Moore[1903]1988,section113.30.SeealsoFlanagan,thisvolume31.Hamilton1995,31–82;Axelrod1984;SoberandWilson1998;Rosen-berg,thisvolume.32.PhilipKitcher1993d;Sober1994c.33.PhilipKitcher1998.34.DeWaal1984,1989.35.Hodge1977;PhilipKitcher1985b.36.PhilipKitcher1996,196–7.37.SeePhilipKitcher1996,ch.11.38.L.Wright1976;Millikan1989;Godfrey-Smith1994b.39.PhilipKitcher1993b.40.Sellars1963,1.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nguidetofurtherreadingdarwin’spublishedworkDarwin’smajorbooksareavailableinawiderangeofformats,fromfreeonlineeditionstoinexpensivepaperbackfacsimilestomultivol-umecomprehensivesets.TheCompleteWorksofCharlesDarwinOnline,awebsitemaintainedbyJohnvanWyhe,presentlyoffersthemostauthoritativeandscholarlyonlineeditions.ThisindispensablewebsiteincludesalsoextensiveunpublishedDarwintextsandgen-eralbibliographicresources,andwillprovideinvaluablecoverageofthefloodofDarwinianaprovokedandpromotedbythebicenten-nialofDarwin’sbirth.InvaluablealsoisthewebsitemaintainedbyDavidKohn,TheDarwinDigitalLibrary.Thereareseveralusefulanthologies,notablyRidley1994,GlickandKohn1996,andSecord2008.ForbibliographicdetailsofbookswrittenbyDarwinandpub-lishedeitherinhislifetimeorsince,seeFreeman1977.Ofthemulti-volumeeditions,onlyone,in29volumes,approachescompleteness:BarrettandFreeman1986.AlmostallofthepaperspublishedbyDar-wininhislifetimeareinBarrett1977,avolumesoontobesuper-sededbyoneeditedbyJohnvanWyhecollectingDarwin’sshorterwritings.Ofposthumouslypublishedbooksthathaveappearedmorerecently,themostimportantisC.Darwin1975.ChangesinthetextoftheOriginofSpeciesthroughitsseveraleditionscanbestudiedinC.Darwin1959.Thesearchingoutofparticularwordsandphrasesiseasilyaccomplishedwiththeonlinetexts,ofcourse;buttraditionalconcordancesalsoexist,inonlineandpublishedformats.ThelatterincludeBarrett,Weinshanketal.1981,1986and1987.477CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n478Guidetofurtherreadingdarwin’snotebooksandmarginaliaForinformationonDarwin’sunpublishedwork,andfortexts,seethetwowebsitesnamedabove.Agreatdealofnotebookmaterialhasbeenpublishedinrecentyears.Themostsignificanteditionisthatofthe1836–44notebooks:Barrettetal.1987.AlsoimportantisKeynes2000,comprisingDarwin’szoologynotesandspecimenlistsfromtheBeaglevoyage.Theintroductionstothesevolumescontainmuchusefulinformationabouttheeditinginrecentdecadesofothermanuscriptmaterials.Weinshanketal.1990isaconcordancetothe1987notebookedition.ForDarwin’sannotationsonthebooksinhispersonallibrary,seeDiGregorio1990.Asecondvolume,ofDarwin’sannotationsonhislargecollectionofoffprintsofarticles,isinpreparation.ByfarthemostextensivebodyofmanuscriptmaterialisintheCambridgeUniversityLibrary.ForthehistoryandcurrentlocationsofDarwin’smanuscripts,anaturalstartingpointisF.Burkhardt1998.correspondenceTwoinexpensivevolumes,F.Burkhardtetal.2008aandb,offersam-plingsofDarwin’scorrespondenceupto1870.ForDarwin’slateryears,twosetsofoldervolumesremainindispensable:F.Darwin[1888]1969andF.DarwinandSeward1903.TheseareintheprocessofbeingsupersededbythesuperblyscholarlyvolumesoftheDar-winCorrespondenceProject:F.Burkhardtetal.1985–2008.ApartfromletterstoandfromDarwin,thesevolumesincludeothersignif-icantmanuscriptsandinvaluableappendicesonparticularaspectsofDarwin’slifeandwork.Themostup-to-dateguidetothewholeofDarwin’scorrespondenceisthecalendarinBurkhardtandSmith1994–nowavailableonlinefromtheDarwinCorrespondenceProjectwebsite.secondaryworksThepresentvolumeiswellcomplementedbyRuseandRichards2009.ThisCambridgeCompaniontotheOriginincludeschap-ters,forinstanceonDarwin’sspeciesconceptandonhisgeology,examiningtopicsandthemesthatdonothavechaptersdevotedtothemhere.Tworecentbiographiessurpassallearlierones,CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nGuidetofurtherreading479especiallyintheiruseofthebestspecialiststudies:DesmondandMoore1991andBrowne1995,2002.Ausefulcompendiumofinfor-mationaboutDarwinisFreeman1978.AmajorcollaborativevolumeonDarwinandhislegaciesisKohn1985a.Itsbibliography,thoughnowsomewhatdated,isexcellent,asisthebibliographyinOldroyd1984.Herbert2005isarecentmajorcontributiontoDarwinstudies.ForthewiderstoryofDarwinism’splaceinhistory,severalrecentbookscanberecommended,notleastfortheirbibliographicguid-ance:E.Mayr1982;KellerandLloyd1992;DepewandWeber1995;Bowler2003;Gayon1998;Jardine,SecordandSpary1996;Ruse1996,1999aand2000b;andHodge2008aand2008b.ForhistoriansofallthingsDarwinian,oldandcurrent,asforhisto-riansofsciencegenerally,themainresourceistheHistoryofScience,TechnologyandMedicinebibliographicdatabase,availableonlinethroughmanyinstitutions.Forhistoricalscholarshipinthisarea,theleadingjournalsaretheJournaloftheHistoryofBiologyand,increasingly,StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofBiologicalandBiomedicalSciences.Astill-helpfulguidetohistoriographictrendsisOlby,Cantor,ChristieandHodge1990.AremarkablygenerousencyclopaediaofDarwinismandevolutionhasbeenpublishedinFrench:Tort1996.darwinismandnaturalisminphilosophyHereonevolumeprovidesanespeciallylivelyintroduction:Calle-baut1993.Itfeaturesextensiveinterviewswithnearlytwodozenleadingfiguresinnaturalistphilosophyofscience,includingphi-losophyofbiology.SeealsoseveralofthebookspublishedintheCambridgeStudiesinPhilosophyandBiologyseries,fromCambridgeUniversityPress,notablyRosenberg2000.Thisseriesisuniquelyusefulfortrackingdevelopmentsinitsinterdisciplinaryarea.An-thologiesofrecentarticlesincludeSober1994a,HullandRuse1998and–intheCambridgeCompanionseries–2008.GoodintroductorytextsincludeLewens2007andGarvey2007.Ofjournals,BiologyandPhilosophyandStudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofBiologicalandBiomedicalSciencesarethemostimportant.Beyondthat,thestandardbibliographicresourcesforphilosophyandthebiologicalsciencesservewell,especiallyThePhilosopher’sIndex,nowavail-ableonlinethroughmanyinstitutions.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nreferencesAchinstein,P.1993.‘WavesandScientificMethod.’PSA1992,vol.2,pp.193–204.EastLansing,Mich.:PhilosophyofScienceAssociation.Adams,MarkB.,ed.1994.TheEvolutionofTheodosiusDobzhansky:EssaysonhisLifeandThoughtinRussiaandAmerica.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Allan,Mea.1977.DarwinandhisFlowers:TheKeytoNaturalSelection.London:FaberandFaber.Allen,DavidElliston.1994.TheNaturalistinBritain:ASocialHistory.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Alter,Stephen.1999.DarwinismandtheLinguisticImage.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.Amigoni,DavidandWallace,Jeff,eds.1995.CharlesDarwin’sTheOriginofSpecies:NewInterdisciplinaryEssays.Manchester:ManchesterUni-versityPress.Amundson,Ron.2005.TheChangingRoleoftheEmbryoinEvolutionaryThought:RootsofEvo-Devo.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.1996.‘HistoricalDevelopmentoftheConceptofAdaptation.’InMichaelR.RoseandGeorgeV.Lauder,eds.,Adaptation,pp.11–53.London:AcademicPress.Anderson,Perry.1992.EnglishQuestions.London:Verso.Anon.1836.LawsandListofMembersoftheCambridgePhilosophicalSociety.Cambridge:Pitt.Appel,TobyA.1987.TheCuvier–GeoffroyDebate:FrenchBiologyintheDecadesBeforeDarwin.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Aquinas,T.1970.SummaTheologiae:11,Man(1a.75–83).London:EyreandSpottiswoode.Aristotle.1985.NicomacheanEthics.Trans.T.Irwin.Indianapolis:Hackett.Armstrong,D.M.1968.AMaterialistTheoryofMind.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.480CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences481Axelrod,Robert.1984.TheEvolutionofCooperation.NewYork:BasicBooks.Ayala,F.J.1967.‘ManinEvolution:AScientificStatementandsomeTheo-logicalandEthicalImplications.’TheThomist31:1–20.1998.‘HumanNature:OneEvolutionist’sView.’InW.S.Brown,N.MurphyandH.N.Malony,eds.,WhateverHappenedtotheSoul?ScientificandTheologicalPortraitsofHumanNature,pp.31–48.Minneapolis:FortressPress.Ayer,A.J.1936.Language,TruthandLogic.London,Gollancz.1954.‘FreedomandNecessity.’PhilosophicalEssays,pp.271–84.London:Macmillan.Babbage,C.1837.TheNinthBridgewaterTreatise.London:Murray.Bacon,F.[1620]1960.TheNewOrganonandRelatedWritings.Ed.F.H.Anderson.Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill.Bagehot,Walter.[1872]1974.PhysicsandPolitics:OrThoughtsontheApplicationofthePrinciplesof‘NaturalSelection’and‘Inheritance’toPoliticalSociety.ReprintedinN.StJohn-Stevas,ed.,TheCollectedWorksofWalterBagehot,vol.vii,pp.65–78.London:TheEconomist,1974.Bannister,RobertC.1979.SocialDarwinism:ScienceandMythinAnglo-AmericanSocialThought.Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress.Barbour,I.1988.‘WaysofRelatingScienceandTheology.’InR.J.Russell,W.R.StoegerandG.V.Coyne,eds.,Physics,Philosophy,andTheology:ACommonQuestforUnderstanding,pp.21–48.VaticanCity:VaticanObservatory.Barkow,J.,Cosmides,L.andTooby,J.,eds.1992.TheAdaptedMind.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Baron-Cohen,S.1995.Mindblindness:AnEssayonAutismandtheTheoryofMind.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.Barrett,P.H.,ed.1977.TheCollectedPapersofCharlesDarwin.2vols.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Barrett,P.H.andFreeman,R.B.,eds.1986.TheWorksofCharlesDarwin.29vols.London:Pickering.Barrett,P.H.,Gautrey,P.J.,Herbert,S.,Kohn,D.andSmith,S.,eds.1987.CharlesDarwin’sNotebooks,1836–1844:Geology,TransmutationofSpecies,MetaphysicalEnquiries.London:BritishMuseum(NaturalHistory)andCambridgeUniversityPress.Barrett,PaulH.,Weinshank,DonaldJ.etal.1981.AConcordancetoDarwin’sOriginofSpecies.London:CornellUniversityPress.1986.AConcordancetoDarwin’sTheExpressionoftheEmotionsinManandAnimals.Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n482Listofreferences1987.AConcordancetoDarwin’sTheDescentofMan,andSelectioninRelationtoSex.Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress.Barrow,J.D.andTipler,F.J.1986.TheAnthropicCosmologicalPrinciple.Oxford:Clarendon.Bartholomew,Michael.1979.‘TheSingularityofLyell.’HistoryofScience27:276–93.Bartley,MaryM.1992.‘DarwinandDomestication:StudiesonInheritance.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology25:307–33.Barton,Ruth.2000.‘HaastandtheMoa:ReversingtheTyrannyofDistance.’PacificScience54:251–63.Beatty,John.1985.‘SpeakingofSpecies:Darwin’sStrategy.’InKohn1985a,265–81.1987.‘OnBehalfoftheSemanticView.’BiologyandPhilosophy2:17–23.Beddall,BarbaraG.1968.‘Wallace,Darwin,andtheTheoryofNaturalSelection:AStudyintheDevelopmentofIdeasandAttitudes.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology1:261–323.1988.‘DarwinandDivergence:TheWallaceConnection.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology21:1–68.Beer,Gillian.1983.Darwin’sPlots:EvolutionaryNarrativeinDarwin,GeorgeEliotandNineteenth-CenturyFiction.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.Behe,M.1996.Darwin’sBlackBox:TheBiochemicalChallengetoEvolu-tion.NewYork:FreePress.Bekoff,Marc.1974.‘SocialPlayinCoyotes,Wolves,andDogs.’BioScience24:225–30.1977.‘SocialCommunicationinCanids:EvidencefortheEvolutionofaStereotypedMammalianDisplay.’Science197:1097–9.Bell,Charles.[1844]1873.Expression:ItsAnatomyandPhilosophy,3rdedn.NewYork:Wells.Thiseditionwasfirstpublishedin1844asTheAnatomyandPhilosophyofExpressionasConnectedwiththeFineArts.London:GeorgeBell.Bellamy,Edward.1888.LookingBackward.NewYork:NewAmericanLibrary.Bellomy,DonaldC.1984.‘“SocialDarwinism”Revisited.’PerspectivesinAmericanHistory,NewSeries,1:1–129.Benton,Ted.1982.‘SocialDarwinismandSocialistDarwinisminGermany:1860to1900.’RivistadiFilosofia73:79–121.1995.‘Science,IdeologyandCulture:MalthusandTheOriginofSpecies.’InAmigoniandWallace1995,pp.68–94.Berry,Andrew,ed.2002.InfiniteTropics:AnAlfredRusselWallaceAnthology.London:Verso.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences483Bezirgan,NajmA.1974.‘TheIslamicWorld.’InThomasF.Glick,ed.,TheComparativeReceptionofDarwinism,pp.375–87.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.Bickerton,D.1990.LanguageandSpecies.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.1995.LanguageandHumanBehavior.Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress.Blackburn,S.1998.RulingPassions.Oxford:Clarendon.2004.Lust.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Borges,J.L.1962.Labyrinths:SelectedStoriesandOtherWritings.NewYork:NewDirections.Bowlby,John.1990.CharlesDarwin:ANewLife.NewYork:Norton.Bowler,PeterJ.1983.TheEclipseofDarwinism:Anti-DarwinianEvolu-tionTheoriesintheDecadesaround1900.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.1989.Evolution:TheHistoryofanIdea.2ndedn.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.1990.CharlesDarwin:TheManandHisInfluence.Oxford:Blackwell.1996.Life’sSplendidDrama:EvolutionaryBiologyandtheReconstruc-tionofLife’sAncestry,1860–1940.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.2003.Evolution:TheHistoryofanIdea.3rdedn.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.2008.‘WhatDarwinDisturbed:TheBiologyThatMightHaveBeen’Isis.Boyd,R.andRicherson,P.1985.CultureandtheEvolutionaryProcess.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Boyle,Robert.1688.ADisquisitionabouttheFinalCausesofNatu-ralThings:WhereinitisInquir’d,Whether,And(ifatall)WithWhatCautions,aNaturalistShouldAdmitThem?London:JohnTaylor.Braddon-Mitchell,D.andJackson,F.1996.ThePhilosophyofMindandCognition.Cambridge,Mass.:Blackwell.Brandon,R.1990.AdaptationandEnvironment.Princeton:PrincetonUni-versityPress.Brandon,R.andCarson,S.1996.‘TheIndeterministicCharacterofEvo-lutionaryTheory–No“NoHiddenVariableProof”butNoRoomforDeterminismEither.’PhilosophyofScience63:15–37.Brent,Peter.1981.CharlesDarwin:AManofEnlargedCuriosity.NewYork:HarperandRow.Brooke,JohnH.1974.NaturalTheologyinBritainfromBoyletoPaley.Units9–10inScienceandBelief:FromCopernicustoDarwin.MiltonKeynes:OpenUniversityPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n484Listofreferences1985.‘TheRelationsbetweenDarwin’sScienceandhisReligion.’InJ.Durant,ed.,DarwinismandDivinity,pp.40–75.Oxford:Blackwell.1990.‘“ASowerWentForth”:JosephPriestleyandtheMinistryofReform.’InA.TrumanSchwarzandJ.McEvoy,eds.,MotionTowardPerfection,pp.21–56.Boston:Skinner.1991.ScienceandReligion:SomeHistoricalPerspectives.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.2009.‘“LawsImpressedonMatterbytheCreator”?TheOriginandtheQuestionofReligion.’InRuseandRichards2009.Brooke,JohnH.andCantor,Geoffrey.1998.ReconstructingNature:TheEngagementofScienceandReligion.Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark.Brooks,JohnLangdon.1984.JustBeforetheOrigin:AlfredRusselWallace’sTheoryofEvolution.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Brosnan,SarahF.anddeWaal,FransB.M.2003.‘Monkeysrejectunequalpay.’Nature425:297–9.Brougham,Henry.1839.DissertationsonSubjectsofScienceconcernedwithNaturalTheology:BeingtheConcludingVolumesoftheNewEditionofPaley’sWork.London:Knight.Browne,Janet.1989.‘BotanyforGentlemen:ErasmusDarwinandTheLovesofthePlants.’Isis80:593–621.1995.CharlesDarwin:Voyaging.NewYork:Knopf.2002.CharlesDarwin:ThePowerofPlace.NewYork:Knopf.Bryan,WilliamJennings.[1924]1967.‘Bryan’sLastSpeech.’ReprintedinL.H.Allen,ed.,BryanandDarrowatDayton;TheRecordandDocumentsofthe‘Bible-EvolutionTrial’,pp.529–55.NewYork:RussellandRussell.Buchwald,J.Z.1993.‘Waves,PhilosophersandHistorians.’PSA1992,vol.2,pp.205–11.EastLansing,Mich.:PhilosophyofScienceAssociation.Bukharin,Nicholaietal.[1931]1971.ScienceattheCrossRoads.2ndedn.London:FrankCass.BurchBrown,Frank.1986.‘TheEvolutionofDarwin’sTheism.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology19:1–45.Burchfield,JoeD.1975.LordKelvinandtheAgeoftheEarth.NewYork:ScienceHistoryPublications.Burkert,W.1996.CreationoftheSacred:TracksofBiologyinEarlyReli-gions.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Burkhardt,Frederick,ed.1998‘TheDarwinPapers.’InPeterFox,ed.,Cam-bridgeUniversityLibrary:TheGreatCollections,pp.118–35.Cam-bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.2008a.Origins:SelectedLettersofCharlesDarwin,1822–1859.Cam-bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.2008b.Evolution:SelectedLettersofCharlesDarwin,1860–1870.Cam-bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences485Burkhardt,FrederickandSmith,Sydney,eds.1994.ACalendaroftheCor-respondenceofCharlesDarwin,1821–82:withSupplement.2ndedn.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Burkhardt,Fredericketal.,eds.1985–2008.TheCorrespondenceofCharlesDarwin,16vols.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Burkhardt,RichardW.1977.TheSpiritofSystem:LamarckandEvolution-aryBiology.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.1979.‘ClosingtheDooronLordMorton’sMare:TheRiseandFallofTelegony.’StudiesintheHistoryofBiology3:1–21.Burleigh,Michael.1994.DeathandDeliverance:‘Euthanasia’inGermany1900–1945.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Burrow,John.1966.EvolutionandSociety:AStudyinVictorianSocialTheory.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Burt,A.1989.‘ComparativeMethodsUsingPhylogeneticallyIndependentContrasts.’OxfordSurveysinEvolutionaryBiology6:33–54.Bury,J.B.1920.TheIdeaofProgress;AnInquiryintoitsOriginandGrowth.London:Macmillan.Buss,D.M.1994.TheEvolutionofDesire:StrategiesofHumanMating.NewYork:BasicBooks.Cabanne,Pierre.1971.DialogueswithMarcelDuchamp.Trans.RonPadgett.NewYork:Viking.Cain,P.J.andHopkins,A.G.1993.BritishImperialism:InnovationandExpansion,1688–1914.London:Longman.Callebaut,Werner,ed.1993.TakingtheNaturalisticTurn,orHowRealPhilosophyofScienceisDone.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Camerini,JaneR.,ed.2001.TheAlfredRusselWallaceReader:ASelectionofWritingsfromtheField.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.Campbell,Donald.1974.‘EvolutionaryEpistemology.’InP.Schilpp,ed.,ThePhilosophyofKarlPopper,pp.413–63.LaSalle:OpenCourt.Campbell,Gordon.2000.‘ZoogonyandEvolutioninPlato’sTimaeus:ThePre-Socratics,LucretiusandDarwin.’InM.R.Wright,ed.,ReasonandNecessity:EssaysonPlato’sTimaeus,pp.145–181.London.2003.LucretiusonCreationandEvolution:ACommentaryonDererumnatura.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.2006.StrangeCreatures:AnthropologyinAntiquity.London:Duckworth.Campbell,John.1974.‘Nature,ReligionandEmotionalResponse:ARe-considerationofDarwin’sAffectiveDecline.’VictorianStudies18:159–74.Cannon,S.F.1978.ScienceinCulture:TheEarlyVictorianPeriod.NewYork:ScienceHistoryPublications.Cannon,W.1961.‘TheBasesofDarwin’sAchievement:ARevaluation.’VictorianStudies5:109–34.Cantor,Geoffrey.2001.‘QuakerResponsestoDarwin.’Osiris16:321–42.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n486ListofreferencesCarus,CarlGustav.1837.‘TheKingdomsofNature,theirLifeandAffinity.’ScientificMemoirs1:223–54.Chalmers,D.J.1996.TheConsciousMind:InSearchofaFundamentalTheory.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.[Chambers,Robert.][1844]1994.VestigesoftheNaturalHistoryofCreation.London:Churchill.Reprintedinfacsimilewithanintroduc-tionbyJamesA.Secord,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.ChandrasekharS.1990.TruthandBeauty:AestheticsandMotivationsinScience.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Churchland,Patricia.1986.Neurophilosophy:TowardsaUnifiedScienceofMind-Brain.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.Churchland,PaulM.1981.‘EliminativeMaterialismandthePropositionalAttitudes.’JournalofPhilosophy78:67–90.1996.TheEngineofReason,TheSeatoftheSoul:APhilosophicalJourneyintotheBrain.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.Clark,A.1997.BeingThere:PuttingBrain,Body,andWorldTogetherAgain.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.Clark,J.C.D.2000.EnglishSociety,1660–1832:Religion,IdeologyandPoliticsDuringtheAncientRegime.2ndedn.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Cohen,G.A.1978.KarlMarx’sTheoryofHistory:ADefence.Oxford:Clarendon.Coleman,William.1964.GeorgesCuvier,Zoologist:AStudyintheHistoryofEvolutionaryTheory.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPressandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Coleman,William.2001.‘TheStrange“Laissez-Faire”ofAlfredRusselWallace:TheConnectionBetweenNaturalSelectionandPoliticalEconomyReconsidered.’InJ.LaurentandJ.Nightingale,eds.,Dar-winismandEvolutionaryEconomics,pp.36–48.Cheltenham:EdwardElgar.ConwayMorris,Simon.1998.TheCrucibleofCreation:TheBurgessShaleandtheRiseofAnimals.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Cope,D.andHofstadter,D.2001.VirtualMusic:ComputerSynthesisofMusicalStyle.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.Corballis,M.1991.TheLopsidedApe:EvolutionoftheGenerativeMind.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Corsi,Pietro.1988.ScienceandReligion:BadenPowellandtheAnglicanDebate,1800–1860.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.1998.‘Darwin:Roundtable.’JournalofVictorianCulture3:129–37.Cosmides,L.andTooby,J.1989.‘EvolutionaryTheoryandtheGenera-tionofCulture,partii.CaseStudy:AComputationalTheoryofSocialExchange.’EthologyandSociobiology10:51–97.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences4871992.‘CognitiveAdaptationsforSocialExchange.’InBarkow,CosmidesandTooby1992,163–227.1994.‘BeyondIntuitionandInstinctBlindness:TowardsanEvolutionarilyRigorousCognitiveScience.’Cognition50:41–77.1995.‘OriginsofDomainSpecificity:TheEvolutionofFunctionalOrga-nization.’InL.A.HirschfeldandS.A.Gelman,eds.,MappingtheMind:DomainSpecificityinCognitionandCulture.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Covington,Syms.1995.TheJournalofSymsCovington,AssistanttoCharlesDarwinEsq.ontheSecondVoyageoftheHMSBeagle.Ed.VernWeitzel.AustralianScienceArchivesProject,UniversityofMelbourne.Ontheweb.Creath,RichardandMaienschein,Jane,eds.2000.BiologyandEpistemol-ogy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Crick,F.1968.‘TheOriginoftheGeneticCode.’JournalofMolecularBiology38:367–79.Cronin,Helena.1991.TheAntandthePeacock:AltruismandSexualSelec-tionfromDarwintoToday.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Crook,Paul.1994.Darwinism,WarandHistory:TheDebateOvertheBiologyofWarfromthe‘OriginofSpecies’totheFirstWorldWar.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.1998.‘SocialDarwinismismandBritish“NewImperialism”:SecondThoughts.’EuropeanLegacy3:1–16.Cunningham,Suzanne.1996.PhilosophyandtheDarwinianLegacy.Rochester:UniversityofRochesterPress.Curd,P.1998.TheLegacyofParmenides:EleaticMonismandLaterPreso-craticThought.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Currie,G.andSterelny,K.2000.‘HowtoThinkabouttheModularityofMindReading.’ThePhilosophicalQuarterly50:145–60.Curtis,R.C.1987.‘DarwinasanEpistemologist.’AnnalsofScience44:379–408.CzikoGary.1995.WithoutMiracles:UniversalSelectionTheoryandtheSecondDarwinianRevolution.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.Darwin,Charles.[1839]1986.JournalofResearchesintotheGeologyandNaturalHistoryoftheVariousCountriesVisitedbyH.M.S.Beagle.London:Colburn.ReprintedinBarrettandFreeman1986,ii.[1859]1964.OntheOriginofSpeciesbyMeansofNaturalSelection,orthePreservationofFavouredRacesintheStruggleforLife.London:JohnMurray.ReprintedinfacsimilewithanintroductionbyErnstMayr,Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.[1860]1962.TheVoyageoftheBeagle.Ed.LeonardEngel.GardenCity,N.Y.:Doubleday.ReprintsJournalofResearches,2ndednof1845.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n488Listofreferences1862.OntheVariousContrivancesbywhichBritishandForeignOr-chidsareFertilisedbyInsects,andontheGoodEffectsofIntercrossing.London:JohnMurray.1868.TheVariationofAnimalsandPlantsUnderDomestication.2vols.London,JohnMurray.[1871]1981.TheDescentofMan,andSelectioninRelationtoSex.2vols.London:JohnMurray.Reprintedinfacsimilewithanintroduc-tionbyJ.T.BonnerandR.M.May,Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.[1872]1998.TheExpressionoftheEmotionsinManandAnimals.London:JohnMurray.Reprintedwithadditionalphotographs,notesfromFrancisDarwin’s1890editionandanintroduction,afterwordandcommentariesbyPaulEkman,London:HarperCollins.[1875]1998.TheVariationofAnimalsandPlantsunderDomestication.2vols.London:JohnMurray.Americanissueof1883reprintedinfac-similewithanintroductionbyHarrietRitvo,2vols.,Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.1877.TheDifferentFormsofFlowersonPlantsoftheSameSpecies.Lon-don:JohnMurray.1909.TheFoundationsoftheOriginofSpecies:TwoEssaysWrittenin1842and1844byCharlesDarwin.Ed.FrancisDarwin.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.1958.TheAutobiographyofCharlesDarwin,1809–1882.Ed.NoraBarlow.London:Collins.1959.TheOriginofSpeciesbyCharlesDarwin:AVariorumText.Ed.MorsePeckham.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.1975.CharlesDarwin’sNaturalSelection:BeingtheSecondPartofHisBigSpeciesBookwrittenfrom1856to1858.Ed.R.C.Stauffer.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Darwin,CharlesandWallace,AlfredRussel.1859.‘OntheTendencyofSpeciestoFormVarieties,andonthePerpetuationofVarietiesandSpeciesbyNaturalMeansofSelection.’Read1July1858.JournaloftheProceedingsoftheLinneanSocietyofLondon,Zoology3:45–62.1958.EvolutionbyNaturalSelection.Ed.GavindeBeer.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.IncludesDarwinandWallace1859andarevisededitionofC.Darwin1909.Darwin,Francis,ed.[1888]1969.TheLifeandLettersofCharlesDarwin.3vols.London:JohnMurray.Americanissuein2vols.Reprintedinfacsimile,NewYork:JohnsonReprint.Darwin,FrancisandSeward,A.C.,eds.1903.MoreLettersofCharlesDar-win.2vols.London:JohnMurray.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences489Daunton,M.J.1995.ProgressandPoverty:AnEconomicandSocialHistoryofBritain1700–1850.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Dawkins,Richard.1976.TheSelfishGene.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.1982.TheExtendedPhenotype:TheGeneastheUnitofSelection.Oxford:Freeman.1983.‘UniversalDarwinism.’InD.S.Bendall,ed.,EvolutionfromMoleculestoMen,pp.403–25.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.ReprintedinHullandRuse1998,pp.15–37.1986.TheBlindWatchmaker.Harmondsworth:Penguin.1995.ARiverOutofEden.NewYork:BasicBooks.1997a.‘HumanChauvinism[ReviewofGould1996].’Evolution51:1015–20.1997b.‘ObscurantismtotheRescue.’QuarterlyReviewofBiology72:397–9.2003.ADevil’sChaplain,Boston&NewYork:HoughtonMifflin.Dawkins,R.andKrebs,J.R.1979.‘ArmsRacesBetweenandWithinSpecies.’ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon,B205:489–511.deRooy,Piet.1990.‘OfMonkeys,Blacks,andProles:ErnstHaeckel’sTheoryofRecapitulation.’InJanBreman,ed.,ImperialMonkeyBusi-ness:RacialSupremacyinSocialDarwinistTheoryandColonialPrac-tice,pp.7–34.Amsterdam:VUAmsterdamPress.Deacon,T.W.1997.TheSymbolicSpecies:TheCo-evolutionofLanguageandtheBrain.NewYork:W.W.Norton.Degler,CarlN.1991.InSearchofHumanNature:TheDeclineandRevivalofDarwinisminAmericanSocialThought.NewYork:OxfordUniver-sityPress.Dembski,W.1998a.TheDesignInference:EliminatingChancethroughSmallProbabilities.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.(Ed.)1998b.MereCreation:Science,FaithandIntelligentDesign.Down-ersGrove,Ill.:IntervarsityPress.Dennett,D.C.1984.ElbowRoom.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.1987.TheIntentionalStance.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.1991.ConsciousnessExplained.Boston:LittleBrown.1993.ReviewofSearle1994.JournalofPhilosophy60:193–205.1995.Darwin’sDangerousIdea:EvolutionandtheMeaningsofLife.NewYork:SimonandSchuster.1996.‘GrannyversusMotherNature–NoContest.’MindandLanguage11:263–9.1998.‘Do-It-YourselfUnderstanding.’InBrainchildren,pp.59–80.Cam-bridge,Mass.:MITPress.2005.‘FromTypotoThinko:WhenEvolutionGraduatedtoSemanticNorms.’InStephenLevinsonandPierreJaisson,eds.,EvolutionandCulture,pp.133–45.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n490ListofreferencesDenton,Michael.1985.Evolution:ATheoryinCrisis.London:BurnettBooks.Dep´eret,C.´1907.Lestransformationsdumondeanimal.Paris:Flammarion.Depew,DavidJ.andWeber,BruceH.1995.DarwinismEvolving:SystemsDynamicsandtheGenealogyofNaturalSelection.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.Desmond,Adrian.1982.ArchetypesandAncestors.London:BlondandBriggs.1989.ThePoliticsofEvolution:Morphology,Medicine,andReforminRadicalLondon.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.2001.‘RedefiningtheXAxis:“Professionals,”“Amateurs”andtheMakingofMid-VictorianBiology–AProgressReport.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology34:3–50.Desmond,AdrianandMoore,James.1991.Darwin.London:MichaelJoseph.1998.‘Roundtable:Darwin.’JournalofVictorianCulture3:147–68.Dettelbach,Michael.1996.‘GlobalPhysicsandAestheticEmpire:Humboldt’sPhysicalPortraitoftheTropics.’InD.P.MillerandP.H.Reill,eds.,VisionsofEmpire:Voyages,Botany,andRepre-sentationsofNature,pp.258–92.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.DeWaal,Frans.1984.ChimpanzeePolitics.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.1989.PeacemakingAmongPrimates.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniver-sityPress.Dewey,John.1910.‘TheInfluenceofDarwinismonPhilosophy.’InTheInfluenceofDarwinonPhilosophyandOtherEssaysinContemporaryThought,pp.1–19.NewYork:HenryHolt.Reprintedin1965byIndianaUniversityPress.Dickens,Peter.2000.SocialDarwinism:LinkingEvolutionaryThoughttoSocialTheory.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.Dickinson,A.andBalleine,B.W.2000.‘CausalCognitionandGoalDirectedAction.’InC.HeyesandL.Huber,eds.,TheEvolutionofCognition,pp.185–204.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.DiGregorio,Mario.1990.CharlesDarwin’sMarginalia.Vol.i.NewYork:Garland.Dixon,Thomas.1999.‘Theology,Anti-TheologyandAtheology.’ModernTheology15:287–330.Dobzhansky,Theodosius.1937.GeneticsandtheOriginofSpecies.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Doolittle,F.1997.‘ADelicateBalance.’BostonReview22:28–9.Doskow,Minna.1997.‘CharlottePerkinsGilman:TheFemaleFaceofSocialDarwinism.’WeberStudies14:9–22.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences491Dretske,F.1981.KnowledgeandtheFlowofInformation.Oxford:Blackwell.Dupre,John.´1981‘NaturalKindsandBiologicalTaxa.’PhilosophicalReview90:66–90.Durant,JohnR.1985.‘TheAscentofNatureinDarwin’sDescentofMan.’InKohn1985a,pp.283–306.Ehrenstrom,Philippe.¨1997.‘EugenicsandtheLawinSwitzerland.’http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL9709/swiss.htm.Ehrhardt,A.1968.TheBeginning:AStudyintheGreekPhilosophicalApproachtotheConceptofCreationfromAnaximandertoStJohn.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.Eigen,Manfred.1992.StepsTowardsLife.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Ekman,P.1972.EmotionsintheHumanFace.NewYork:Pergamon.1992.‘AreThereBasicEmotions?’PsychologicalReview99:550–3.1998.‘Introduction,’‘Afterword’andcommentariestoDarwin[1872]1998.Elder,GregoryP.1996.ChronicVigour:Darwin,Anglicans,Catholics,andtheDevelopmentofaDoctrineofProvidentialEvolution.Lanham:UniversityPressofAmerica.Eldredge,Niles.1989.Macro-EvolutionaryDynamics:Species,NichesandAdaptivePeaks.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.Eldredge,NilesandCracraft,J.,eds.1980.PhylogeneticPatternandtheEvolutionaryProcess.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Eldredge,NilesandGould,StephenJay.1972.‘PunctuatedEquilibria:AnAlternativetoPhyleticGradualism.’InT.J.M.Schopf,ed.,ModelsinPaleobiology,pp.82–115.SanFrancisco:Freeman.Ellegrd,Alvar.[1958]1990.DarwinandtheGeneralReader:TheRe-ceptionofDarwin’sTheoryofEvolutionintheBritishPeriodicalPress,1859–1972.Goteborg:G¨oteborgsUniversitets¨Årsskrift,vol.64.Reprinted.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Enc¸,B.1986.‘EssentialismwithoutIndividualEssences.’MidwestStudiesinPhilosophy11:403–26.Endler,J.1986.NaturalSelectionintheWild.Princeton:PrincetonUniver-sityPress.Engels,Friedrich.[1845]1987.TheConditionoftheWorkingClassinEng-land.Harmondsworth:Penguin.Ereshefsky,M.1991.‘Species,HigherTaxa,andtheUnitsofEvolution.’PhilosophyofScience58:84–101.(Ed.)1992.TheUnitsofEvolution:EssaysontheNatureofSpecies.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.Erskine,Fiona.1987.‘DarwininContext:TheLondonYears’.UnpublishedPhDdissertation.OpenUniversity.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n492Listofreferences1995.‘TheOriginofSpeciesandtheScienceofFemaleInferiority.’InAmigoniandWallace1995,pp.95–121.Evans,L.T.1984.‘Darwin’sUseoftheAnalogybetweenArtificialandNat-uralSelection.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology17:113–40.Evans,RichardJ.1997.‘InSearchofGermanSocialDarwinism:TheHis-toryandHistoriographyofaConcept.’InManfredBergandGeoffreyCocks,eds.,MedicineandModernity:PublicHealthandMedicalCarein19th-and20th-CenturyGermany,pp.55–79.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Farley,John.1982.GametesandSpores:IdeasaboutSexualReproduction,1750–1914.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.Felsenstein,J.1978.‘CasesinwhichParsimonyandCompatibilityMethodscanbePositivelyMisleading.’SystematicZoology27:401–10.Fisch,MenachemandSchaffer,Simon,eds.1991.WilliamWhewell:ACom-positePortrait.Oxford:Clarendon.Fisher,RonaldA.1930.TheGeneticalTheoryofNaturalSelection.Oxford:Clarendon.1947.‘TheRenaissanceofDarwinism.’Listener37:1001.ReprintedinJ.H.Bennett,ed.,CollectedPapersofR.A.Fisher,5vols.,vol.iv,pp.616–20.Adelaide:UniversityofAdelaidePress,1971–4.Flanagan,O.1996.‘EthicsNaturalized:EthicsasHumanEcology.’InL.May,M.FriedmanandA.Clark,eds.,MindandMorals:EssaysonEthicsandCognitiveScience,pp.19–44.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.2000a.DreamingSouls:Sleep,Dreams,andtheEvolutionoftheCon-sciousMind.NewYork:Oxford.2000b.‘DestructiveEmotions.’ConsciousnessandEmotion1:67–88.2002.TheProblemoftheSoul:TwoVisionsofMindandHowtoReconcileThem.NewYork:BasicBooks.Flanagan,O.,Hardcastle,V.G.andNahmias,E.2001.‘IsHumanIntelligenceanAdaptation?CautionaryObservationsfromPhilosophyofBiology.’InR.Sternberg,ed.,TheEvolutionofIntelligence,pp.199–222.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Fleming,John,1822.ThePhilosophyofZoology.2vols.Edinburgh:Constable.Fodor,J.A.1975.TheLanguageofThought.NewYork:ThomasY.Crowell.1983.TheModularityofMind.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.1987.Psychosemantics:TheProblemofMeaninginthePhilosophyofMind.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.1990.ATheoryofContentandOtherEssays.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.2000.TheMindDoesn’tWorkThatWay.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences493Fodor,Jerry.2007.‘WhyPigsDon’tHaveWings.’LondonReviewofBooks,18October.Francis,Mark.2007.HerbertSpencerandtheInventionofModernLife.Stocksfield:Acumen.Frank,P.1988.PassionWithinReason:TheStrategicRoleoftheEmotions.NewYork:W.W.Norton.Frede,M.1992.‘OnAristotle’sConceptionoftheSoul.’InM.C.NussbaumandA.O.Rorty,eds.,EssaysonAristotle’sDeAnima,pp.93–107.Oxford:Clarendon.Freeland,S.,KnightR.,Landweber,L.andHurstL.2000.‘EarlyFixationofanOptimalGeneticCode.’MolecularBiologyandEvolution17:511–18.Freeman,R.B.1977.TheWorksofCharlesDarwin:AnAnnotatedBiblio-graphicalHandlist.2ndedn.Folkestone,Kent:Dawson.1978.CharlesDarwin:ACompanion.Folkestone,Kent:Dawson.Fyfe,Aileen.1997.‘TheReceptionofWilliamPaley’sNaturalTheologyintheUniversityofCambridge.’BritishJournalfortheHistoryofScience30:321–35.2000.‘IndustrialisedConversion:TheReligiousTractSocietyandPopularSciencePublishinginVictorianBritain’.UnpublishedPhDdissertation.UniversityofCambridge.Galton,Francis.1865.‘HereditaryTalentandCharacter.’Macmillan’sMagazine12:157–66,318–27.Garvey,Brian.2007.ThePhilosophyofBiology.Stocksfield:Acumen.Gasman,Daniel.1972.IntroductiontoAlfred.H.Fried,HandbuchderFriedensbewegung.Reprintof2ndedn,1911–13.NewYork:GarlandPublishers.1998.Haeckel’sMonismandtheBirthofFascistIdeology.NewYork:Lang.2004.TheScientificOriginofNationalSocialism.Withanewintroduc-tionbytheauthor.NewBrunswick,N.J.:TransactionPublishers.Gaudry,A.1866.Considerationsg´en´eralessurlesanimauxfossilesde´Pikermi.Paris:Savy.Gaukroger,Stephen.2002.Descartes’SystemofNaturalPhilosophy.Cam-bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Gayon,Jean.1997.‘TheParamountPowerofSelection:FromDarwintoKauffman.’InM.L.DallaChiara,K.Doets,D.MundiciandJ.vanBenthem,eds.,StructuresandNormsinScience,pp.265–82.Dordrecht:Kluwer.1998.Darwinism’sStruggleforSurvival:HeredityandtheHypothesisofNaturalSelection.Rev.of1992Frenchoriginal.Trans.MatthewCobb.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n494ListofreferencesGeison,GeraldL.1969.‘DarwinandHeredity:TheEvolutionofHisHy-pothesisofPangenesis.’JournaloftheHistoryofMedicineandAlliedSciences24:375–411.Gerson,LloydP.1990.GodandGreekPhilosophy:StudiesintheEarlyHistoryofNaturalTheology.London:Routledge.Ghiselin,MichaelT.1969.TheTriumphoftheDarwinianMethod.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.1973.‘DarwinandEvolutionaryPsychology.’Science179:964–8.1974.‘ARadicalSolutiontotheSpeciesProblem.’SystematicZoology23:536–44.Gibbard,A.1990.WiseChoices,AptFeelings:ATheoryofNormativeJudg-ment.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Gillespie,NealC.1979.CharlesDarwinandtheProblemofCreation.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.1987.‘NaturalHistory,NaturalTheology,andSocialOrder:JohnRayandthe“NewtonianIdeology”.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology20:1–49.1990.‘DivineDesignandtheIndustrialRevolution:WilliamPaley’sAbortiveReformofNaturalTheology.’Isis81:214–29.Gillispie,C.C.[1951]1996.GenesisandGeology:AStudyintheRelationsofScientificThought,NaturalTheology,andSocialOpinioninGreatBritain,1790–1850.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Gilson,Etienne.´1957.TheChristianPhilosophyofSt.ThomasAquinas.London:V.Gollancz.1961.TheChristianPhilosophyofSaintAugustine.London:Gollancz.Glick,ThomasF.,ed.1988.TheComparativeReceptionofDarwinism.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Firstpublishedin1974.Glick,ThomasF.andKohn,David,eds.1996.DarwinonEvolution:TheDevelopmentoftheTheoryofNaturalSelection.Indianapolis:Hackett.Godfrey-Smith,P.1991.‘Signal,Decision,Action.’JournalofPhilosophy88:709–22.1992.‘IndicationandAdaptation.’Synthese92:283–312.1994a.‘AContinuumofSemanticOptimism.’InS.P.StichandT.A.Warfield,eds.,MentalRepresentation,pp.259–77.Oxford:Blackwell.1994b.‘AModernHistoryTheoryofFunctions.’Nousˆ28:344–62.1996.ComplexityandtheFunctionofMindinNature.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Golinski,Jan.1998.MakingNaturalKnowledge:ConstructivismandtheHistoryofScience.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences495Gordon,Scott.1989.‘DarwinandPoliticalEconomy:TheConnectionReconsidered.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology22:437–59.Gould,StephenJay.1980.‘ThePanda’sThumb.’InThePanda’sThumb:MoreReflectionsinNaturalHistory,pp.19–26.London:Norton.1989.WonderfulLife:TheBurgessShaleandtheNatureofHistory.London:HutchinsonRadius.1996.Life’sGrandeur:TheSpreadofExcellencefromPlatotoDarwin.London:JonathanCape.PublishedintheUSAasFullHouse:TheSpreadofExcellencefromPlatotoDarwin.NewYork:HarmonyBooks.1998.‘OnTransmutingBoyle’sLawtoDarwin’sRevolution.’InA.C.Fabian,ed.,Evolution:Society,ScienceandtheUniverse,pp.4–27.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.1999.RocksofAges:ScienceandReligionintheFullnessofLife.NewYork:Ballantine.2000.‘ASlyDullardNamedDarwin:RecognizingtheMultipleFacetsofGenius.’InTheLyingStonesofMarrakech:PenultimateReflectionsinNaturalHistory,pp.169–81.London:JonathanCape.2002.TheStructureofEvolutionaryTheory.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Gould,StephenJayandLewontin,RichardC.1979.‘TheSpandrelsofSanMarcoandthePanglossianParadigm:ACritiqueoftheAdaptationistProgramme.’ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon,B205:581–98.ReprintedinSober1994a,pp.73–90.Graham,Daniel.2006.ExplainingtheCosmos:TheIonianTraditionofSci-entificPhilosophy.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Greene,John.1981.‘DarwinasaSocialEvolutionist.’InScience,Ideol-ogy,andWorldView:EssaysintheHistoryofEvolutionaryIdeas,pp.95–127.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Greg,WilliamR.1868.‘OntheFailureof“NaturalSelection”intheCaseofMan.’Fraser’sMagazine68:353–62.Gregory,Frederick.1986.‘TheImpactofDarwinianEvolutiononProtes-tantTheologyintheNineteenthCentury.’InD.LindbergandR.Num-bers,eds.,GodandNature:HistoricalEssaysontheEncounterbetweenChristianityandScience,pp.369–90.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Griffiths,PaulE.1996.‘TheHistoricalTurnintheStudyofAdaptation.’BritishJournalforthePhilosophyofScience47:511–32.1997.WhatEmotionsReallyAre:TheProblemsofPsychologicalCate-gories.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Gruber,HowardE.1981.DarwinonMan:APsychologicalStudyofScien-tificCreativity.2ndedn.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n496ListofreferencesGruner,Rolf.1975.‘Science,NatureandChristianity.’JournalofTheologi-calStudies26:55–81.Hacking,Ian.1990.TheTamingofChance.Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-sityPress.1991.‘ATraditionofNaturalKinds.’PhilosophicalStudies61:109–26.1992.‘“Style”forHistoriansandPhilosophers.’StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofScience23:1–20.ReprintedinHistoricalOntology,pp.178–99.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,2002.1999.TheSocialConstructionofWhat?Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUni-versityPress.2000.‘HowInevitablearetheResultsofSuccessfulScience?’PhilosophyofScience67(Supp.):S58–71.Haeckel,Ernst.1866.GenerelleMorphologiederOrganismen.2vols.Berlin:G.Reimer.1868.NaturlicheSch¨opfungsgeschichte¨.Berlin:Reimer.PublishedinEnglishasTheHistoryofCreation,trans.E.RayLankester,2vols.London:HenryKing,1876.1879.FreedominScienceandTeaching.NewYork:Appleton.Hagen,JoelB.1999.‘RetellingExperiments:H.B.D.Kettlewell’sStudiesofIndustrialMelanisminPepperedMoths.’BiologyandPhilosophy14:39–54.Haldane,J.B.S.1927.PossibleWorlds,andOtherPapers.London:ChattoandWindus.Hall,A.Rupert.1969.TheCambridgePhilosophicalSociety:AHistory,1819–1969.Cambridge:CambridgePhilosophicalSociety.Hamilton,W.D.1995.NarrowRoadsofGeneLand.SanFrancisco:Freeman.Hankinson,R.J.1998.CauseandExplanationinAncientGreekThought.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Harvey,P.andPagel,M.1991.TheComparativeMethodinEvolutionaryBiology.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Haught,J.F.1995.ScienceandReligion:FromConflicttoConversation.NewYork:PaulistPress.Hauser,Marc.2006.MoralMinds:HowNatureDesignedourUniversalSenseofRightandWrong.NewYork:Ecco.Hawking,Stephen.1988.ABriefHistoryofTime.NewYork:Bantam.Hawkins,Mike.1997.SocialDarwinisminEuropeanandAmeri-canThought,1860–1945:NatureasModelandNatureasThreat.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Hayek,F.1982.Law,LegislationandLiberty:ANewStatementoftheLiberalPrinciplesofJusticeandPoliticalEconomy.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences497Henslow,JohnS.1828.SyllabusofaCourseofBotanicalLectures.Cambridge:Hodson.1833.SketchofaCourseofLecturesonBotanyfor1833.Cambridge:Privatelyprinted.Herbert,Sandra.1985.‘DarwintheYoungGeologist.’InKohn1985a,pp.483–510.1995.‘FromCharlesDarwin’sPortfolio:AnEarlyEssayonSouthAmericanGeologyandSpecies.’EarthSciencesHistory14:23–36.2005.CharlesDarwin,Geologist.Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress.Herrnstein,RichardandMurray,Charles.1994.TheBellCurve:IntelligenceandClassStructureinAmericanLife.NewYork:FreePress.Herschel,J.F.W.[1830]1987.APreliminaryDiscourseontheStudyofNatu-ralPhilosophy.Longman:London,1830.Reprinted.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.1841.‘ReviewofHistoryoftheInductiveSciencesfromtheEarliesttothePresentTimesbyWilliamWhewell(1837)andThePhilosophyoftheInductiveSciences,FoundedupontheirHistorybyWilliamWhewell(1840).’QuarterlyReview68:177–238.1861.PhysicalGeographyoftheGlobe.Edinburgh:AdamandCharlesBlack.Hick,J.1978.EvilandtheGodofLove.NewYork:HarperandRow.Hirai,Hiro.2005.Leconceptdesemencedanslestheoriesdelamati´ere`a`larenaissance:deMarsileFicinaPierreGassendi`.Turnhout,Belgium:Brepols.Hodge,M.J.[Jonathan]S.1977.‘TheStructureandStrategyofDarwin’s“LongArgument”.’BritishJournalfortheHistoryofScience10:237–46.1982.‘DarwinandtheLawsoftheAnimatePartoftheTerrestrialSystem(1835–1837):OntheLyellianOriginsofHisZoonomicalExplanatoryProgram.’StudiesintheHistoryofBiology7:1–106.1983.‘TheDevelopmentofDarwin’sGeneralBiologicalTheorizing.’InD.S.Bendall,ed.,EvolutionfromMoleculestoMen,pp.43–62.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.1985.‘DarwinasaLifelongGenerationTheorist.’InKohn1985a,pp.207–43.1986‘Darwin,SpeciesandtheTheoryofNaturalSelection.’InS.Atranetal.,Histoireduconceptd’especedanslessciencesdelavie`,pp.227–52.Paris:FondationSinger-Polignac.1987.‘NaturalSelectionasaCausal,Empirical,andProbabilisticThe-ory.’InLorenzKruger,GerdGigerenzerandMaryS.Morgan,eds,¨TheProbabilisticRevolution:Volume2:IdeasintheSciences,pp.233–70.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n498Listofreferences1989.‘Darwin’sTheoryandDarwin’sArgument.’InMichaelRuse,ed.,WhatthePhilosophyofBiologyIs:EssaysDedicatedtoDavidHull,pp.163–82.Dordrecht:Kluwer.1990.‘DarwinStudiesatWork:ARe-examinationofThreeDecisiveYears(1835–37).’InT.H.LevereandW.R.Shea,eds.,Nature,ExperimentandtheSciences:EssaysonGalileoandtheHistoryofScienceinHonorofStillmanDrake,pp.249–73.Dordrecht:Kluwer.1991a.‘TheHistoryoftheEarth,LifeandMan:WhewellandPalaetiolog-icalScience.’InFischandSchaffer1991,pp.255–89.1991b.OriginsandSpecies:AStudyoftheHistoricalSourcesofDarwin-ismandtheContextsofSomeOtherAccountsofOrganicDiversityfromPlatoandAristotleOn.NewYork:Garland.1992a.‘BiologyandPhilosophy(IncludingIdeology):AStudyofFisherandWright.’InSarkar1992,pp.231–93.1992b.‘Discussion:Darwin’sArgumentintheOrigin.’PhilosophyofSci-ence59:461–4.1994.‘NaturalHistory,Physiology,BiologyandthePeculiaritiesofEnglishCapitalism.’Unpublishedpaper.ReadattheconferenceScienceandBritishCultureinthe1830s,TrinityCollege,UniversityofCambridge,6–8July.2000.‘KnowingaboutEvolution:DarwinandHisTheoryofNaturalSelection.’InCreathandMaienschein2000,pp.27–47.2005.‘Against“Revolution”and“Evolution”.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology38:101–21.2008a.BeforeandAfterDarwin:Origins,Species,CosmogoniesandOn-tologies.Aldershot:Ashgate.2008b.DarwinStudies:ATheoristandHisTheoriesinTheirContexts.Aldershot:Ashgate.Hodge,M.J.S.andKohn,D.1985.‘TheImmediateOriginsofNaturalSelection.’InKohn1985a,pp.185–206.Hofstadter,DouglasandDennett,DanielC.,eds.1981.TheMind’sI:FantasiesandReflectionsonSelfandSoul.NewYork:BasicBooks.Hofstadter,Richard.1944.SocialDarwinisminAmericanThought.Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.Holden,C.2000.‘OklahomaLawmakersTakeaShotatDarwin.’Science288:431.Hooper,Judith.2002.OfMothsandMen:Intrigue,TragedyandthePepperedMoth.London:FourthEstate.Hosle,VittorioandIllies,Christian,eds.¨2005.DarwinismandPhilosophy.NotreDame:UniversityofNotreDamePress.Hrdy,S.B.1999.MotherNature:AHistoryofMothers,Infants,andNaturalSelection.NewYork:PantheonBooks.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences499Hudson,Pat.1992.TheIndustrialRevolution.London:Arnold.Hull,DavidL.1964.‘ConsistencyandMonophyly.’SystematicZoology13:1–11.1965.‘TheEffectofEssentialismonTaxonomy–2000YearsofSta-sis.’BritishJournalforthePhilosophyofScience15:314–26and16:1–18.1973.DarwinandhisCritics:TheReceptionofDarwin’sTheoryofEvolutionbytheScientificCommunity.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.1978.‘AMatterofIndividuality.’PhilosophyofScience45:335–60.1979.‘TheLimitsofCladism.’SystematicZoology28:416–40.1986.‘OnHumanNature.’PSA1986,vol.2,pp.3–13.EastLansing,Mich.:PhilosophyofScienceAssociation.ReprintedinHullandRuse1998,pp.383–97.1987.ScienceasaProcess:AnEvolutionaryAccountoftheSocialandConceptualDevelopmentofScience.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.1995.‘DieRezeptionvonDarwinsEvolutionstheoriebeibritischenWissenschaftsphilosophendes19.Jarhunderts.’InE-M.Engels,ed.,DieRezeptionvonEvolutionstheorienim19.Jahrhundert,pp.67–105.Frankfurt:Suhrkamp.2000.‘WhyDidDarwinFail?TheRoleofJohnStuartMill.’InCreathandMaienschein2000,pp.48–88.2001.ScienceandSelection:EssaysinBiologicalEvolutionandthePhilosophyofScience.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Hull,DavidL.andRuse,Michael,eds.1998.ThePhilosophyofBiology.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.2008.TheCambridgeCompaniontothePhilosophyofBiology.Cam-bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Humboldt,Alexandervon.[1814–29]1966.PersonalNarrativeofTravelstotheEquinoctialRegionsoftheNewContinentDuringtheYears1799–1804.Trans.HelenWilliams.7vols.London:Longman,Hurst,Rees,Orme,andBrown.Reprintedinfacsimilein6vols.,NewYork:AmsPress.1845–62.Kosmos.EntwurfeinerphysichenWeltbeschreibung.5vols.Stuttgart:J.G.Gotta’scherVerlag.Hume,David.1739.ATreatiseofHumanNature.Ed.L.A.Selby-Bigge.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1964.1748.AnEnquiryConcerningHumanUnderstanding.Ed.TomL.Beauchamp.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1999.1751.AnEnquiryConcerningthePrinciplesofMorals.Ed.TomL.Beauchamp.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1998.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n500Listofreferences1779.DialoguesConcerningNaturalReligion.Ed.DorothyColeman.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006.1888.TreatiseofHumanNature.Ed.L.A.Selby-Bigge.Oxford:Clarendon.1985.Essays,Moral,Political,andLiterary.Ed.EugeneF.Miller,Indi-anapolis:LibertyClassics.Hurka,Thomas.1993.Perfectionism.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Huxley,Julian.1942.Evolution:TheModernSynthesis.London:AllenandUnwin.Huxley,ThomasH.1896.Darwiniana.NewYork:Appleton.Jaki,StanleyL.1978.TheRoadofScienceandtheWaystoGod.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Jann,Rosemary.1994.‘DarwinandtheAnthropologists:SexualSelectionanditsDiscontents.’VictorianStudies37:287–306.Jardine,Nicholas,Secord,JamesA.andSpary,EmmaC.,eds.1996.CulturesofNaturalHistory.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Jenkin,F.[1867]1973.‘TheOriginofSpecies.’TheNorthBritishReview44:277–318.ReprintedinHull1973,pp.302–50.Jevons,W.S.1869.TheSubstitutionofSimilars.London:Macmillan.1874ThePrinciplesofScience,aTreatiseonLogicandScientificMethod.London:JohnMurray.JohnPaulII.1997.‘ThePope’sMessageonEvolution.’QuarterlyReviewofBiology72:377–83.Jones,Greta.1980.SocialDarwinisminEnglishThought:TheInter-actionBetweenBiologicalandSocialTheory.Sussex:HarvesterPress.1998.‘TheoreticalFoundationsofEugenics.’InRobertA.Peel,ed.,EssaysintheHistoryofEugenics,pp.1–19.London:TheGaltonInstitute.Jordanova,LudmillaJ.1984.Lamarck.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Kauffman,StuartA.1993.TheOriginsofOrder:Self-OrganizationandSelection.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Kavaloski,VincentCarl.1974.‘TheVeraCausaPrinciple:AnHistorico-PhilosophicalStudyofaMetatheoreticalConceptfromNewtonthroughDarwin’.UnpublishedPhDdissertation.UniversityofChicago.Kaye,HowardL.1997.TheSocialMeaningofModernBiology:FromSo-cialDarwinismtoSociobiology.NewBrunswick,N.J.:TransactionPublishers.Keller,EvelynFoxandLloyd,ElisabethA.,eds.1992.KeywordsinEvolu-tionaryBiology.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Kellogg,Vernon.1917.HeadquartersNights.Boston:AtlanticMonthlyPress.Kelly,Alfred.1981.TheDescentofDarwin:ThePopularizationofDarwin-isminGermany,1860–1914.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences501Kettlewell,H.B.D.1955.‘SelectionExperimentsonIndustrialMelanismintheLepidoptera.’Heredity9:323–42.Keynes,R.D.,ed.1988.CharlesDarwin’sBeagleDiary.Cambridge:Cam-bridgeUniversityPress.2000.CharlesDarwin’sZoologyNotesandSpecimenListsfromH.M.S.Beagle.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Killingley,Dermot.1995.‘Hinduism,DarwinismandEvolutioninLate-Nineteenth-CenturyIndia.’InAmigoniandWallace1995,174–202.Kimura,M.1968.‘EvolutionaryRateattheMolecularLevel.’Nature217:624–6.1983.TheNeutralTheoryofMolecularEvolution.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.King,J.L.andJukes,T.H.1969.‘Non-DarwinianEvolution:RandomFixa-tionofSelectivelyNeutralMutations.’Science164:788–98.Kingsley,F.E.,ed.1883.CharlesKingsley:HisLettersandMemoriesofhisLife.London:KeganPaul.Kitcher,Patricia.1992.Freud’sDream.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.Kitcher,Philip.1983.TheNatureofMathematicalKnowledge.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.1985a.VaultingAmbition:SociobiologyandtheQuestforHumanNa-ture.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.1985b.‘Darwin’sAchievement.’InNicholasRescher,ed.,ReasonandRationalityinScience,pp.123–85.Washington,D.C.:UniversityPressofAmerica.1990.‘DevelopmentalDecompositionandtheFutureofHumanBehav-ioralEcology.’PhilosophyofScience57:96–117.1993a.TheAdvancementofScience:SciencewithoutLegend,ObjectivitywithoutIllusions.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.1993b.‘FunctionandDesign.’MidwestStudiesinPhilosophy18,379–97.ReprintedinHullandRuse1998,pp.258–79.1993c.‘Knowledge,Society,andHistory.’CanadianJournalofPhilosophy23,155–78.1993d.‘TheEvolutionofHumanAltruism.’JournalofPhilosophy90:497–516.1994.‘FourWaysof“Biologicizing”Ethics.’InSober1994a,pp.439–50.1996.TheLivesToCome:TheGeneticRevolutionandHumanPossibil-ities.NewYork:SimonandSchuster.1998.‘PsychologicalAltruism,EvolutionaryOrigins,andMoralRules.’PhilosophicalStudies89:283–316.1999.‘EssenceandPerfection.’Ethics110:59–83.2000.‘APrioriKnowledgeRevisited.’InPaulBoghossianandChristopherPeacocke,eds.,NewEssaysontheAPriori,pp.65–91.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n502Listofreferences2001.‘InfectiousIdeas.’TheMonist84:363–91.Klaaren,EugeneM.1977.TheReligiousOriginsofModernScience.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.Knoll,Elizabeth.1997.‘Dogs,Darwinism,andEnglishSensibilities.’InRobertW.Mitchell,NicholasS.ThompsonandH.LynMiles,eds.,Anthropomorphism,Anecdotes,andAnimals,pp.12–21.Albany,N.Y.:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.Koerner,K.,ed.1983.LinguisticsandEvolutionaryTheory:ThreeEssaysbyAugustScheicher,ErnstHaeckel,andWilhelmBleek.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Koerner,Lisbet.1996.‘CarlLinnaeusinHisTimeandPlace.’InJardine,SecordandSpary1996,pp.145–62.1999.Linnaeus:NatureandNation.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniver-sityPress.Kohn,David.1981.‘OntheOriginofthePrincipleofDiversity.’Science213:1105–8.(Ed.)1985a.TheDarwinianHeritage.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.1985b.‘Darwin’sPrincipleofDivergenceasInternalDialogue.’InKohn1985a,245–57.1989.‘Darwin’sAmbiguity:TheSecularizationofBiologicalMeaning.’BritishJournalfortheHistoryofScience22:215–239.1996.‘TheAestheticConstructionofDarwin’sTheory.’InA.I.Tauber,ed.,TheElusiveSynthesis:AestheticsandScience,pp.13–48.Dor-drecht:Kluwer.Kottler,M.J.1974.‘AlfredRusselWallace,theOriginofMan,andSpiritu-alism.’Isis65:145–92.1985.‘CharlesDarwinandAlfredRusselWallace:TwoDecadesofDebateoverNaturalSelection.’InKohn1985a,367–432.Kretzmann,Norman.1999.TheMetaphysicsofCreation:Aquinas’sNaturalTheologyinSummacontragentilesII.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Kripke,Saul.1980.NamingandNecessity.CambridgeMass.:HarvardUni-versityPress.1992.WittgensteinonRulesandPrivateLanguage:AnElementaryExposition.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Kuhn,ThomasS.1970.TheStructureofScientificRevolutions.2ndedn.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.LaVergata,Antonello.1985.‘ImagesofDarwin:AHistoriographicOverview.’InKohn1985a,901–72.Lakatos,Imre.1970.‘FalsificationandtheMethodologyofScientificRe-searchProgrammes.’InI.LakatosandA.Musgrave,eds.,CriticismandCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences503theGrowthofKnowledge,pp.91–196.Cambridge:CambridgeUniver-sityPress.Landes,DavidS.1983.RevolutioninTime:ClocksandtheMak-ingoftheModernWorld.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Larson,EdwardJ.1998.SummerfortheGods:TheScopesTrialandAmer-ica’sContinuingDebateoverScienceandReligion.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Larson,JamesL.1971.ReasonandExperience:TheRepresentationofOrderintheWorkofCarlvonLinne´.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Laudan,L.1977.ProgressanditsProblems.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.1981.ScienceandHypothesis:HistoricalEssaysinScientificMethodol-ogy.London:D.Reidel.1993.‘Waves,Particles,IndependentTestsandtheLimitsofInduction.’PSA1992,vol.2,pp.212–23.EastLansing,Mich.:PhilosophyofScienceAssociation.Laudan,R.1982.‘TheRoleofMethodologyinLyell’sScience.’StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofScience13:215–49.Lewens,Tim.2007.Darwin.London:Routledge.Lewis,David.1969.Convention.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Lewis,P.1998.‘MaximumLikelihoodasanAlternativetoParsimonyforInferringPhylogenyusingNucleotideSequenceData.’InD.Soltis,P.SoltisandJ.Doyle,eds.,MolecularSystematicsofPlantsII.Boston:Kluwer.Lewontin,RichardC.1970.‘TheUnitsofSelection.’AnnualReviewofEcologyandSystematics1:1–18.1974.TheGeneticBasisofEvolutionaryChange.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.1993.TheDoctrineofDNA:BiologyasIdeology.Harmondsworth:Penguin.Lewontin,R.C.,Rose,S.andKamin,L.1984.NotInOurGenes:Biology,Ideology,andHumanNature.NewYork:Pantheon.Lieberman,P.1998.EveSpoke:HumanLanguageandHumanEvolution.NewYork:Norton.Liebknecht,William.1901.KarlMarx:BiographicalMemoirs.Trans.ErnestUntermann.Chicago:C.H.Kerr.Lightman,Bernard,ed.1997.VictorianScienceinContext.Chicago:Uni-versityofChicagoPress.Limoges,Camille.1994.‘Milne-Edwards,Darwin,DurkheimandtheDi-visionofLabour:ACaseStudyinReciprocalConceptualExchangesbetweentheSocialandtheNaturalSciences.’InI.B.Cohen,ed.,CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n504ListofreferencesTheNaturalSciencesandtheSocialSciences,pp.317–43.Dordrecht:Kluwer.Livingstone,DavidN.1992.‘DarwinismandCalvinism:TheBelfast–PrincetonConnection.’Isis83:408–28.Lloyd,Elisabeth.1983.‘TheNatureofDarwin’sSupportfortheTheoryofNaturalSelection.’PhilosophyofScience50:112–29.1988.TheStructureandConfirmationofEvolutionaryTheory.NewYork:GreenwoodPress.1999.‘EvolutionaryPsychology:TheBurdensofProof.’BiologyandPhi-losophy14:211–33.Lloyd,G.E.R.2006.‘TheEvolutionofEvolution:Greco-RomanAntiquityandtheOriginofSpecies.’InPrinciplesandPracticesinAncientGreekandChineseScience,ch.XI.Aldershot:Ashgate.Love,AlanC.2002‘DarwinandCirripediaPriorto1846:ExploringtheOriginsoftheBarnacleResearch.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology35:251–89.Lovejoy,A.O.1936.TheGreatChainofBeing:TheHistoryofAnIdea.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Lyell,Charles.[1830–3]1990.PrinciplesofGeology.3vols.London:JohnMurray.ReprintedinfacsimilewithanintroductionbyM.J.S.Rudwick,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.1863.TheGeologicalEvidencesoftheAntiquityofMan.London:JohnMurray.McCord,Norman.1991.BritishHistory,1815–1906.Oxford:OxfordUni-versityPress.McDonald,Roger.1998.MrDarwin’sShooter.London:Anchor.[MacKenzie,RobertBeverley.]1868.TheDarwinianTheoryoftheTransmu-tationofSpeciesExamined.London:Nisbet&Co.Quotedinareview,Athenaeumno.2102,8February:217.McMullin,E.1991.‘Plantinga’sDefenseofSpecialCreation.’ChristianScholar’sReview21:55–79.1993.‘EvolutionandSpecialCreation.’Zygon28:299–335.ReprintedinHullandRuse1998,pp.698–733.1996.‘EvolutionaryContingencyandCosmicPurpose.’InM.HimesandS.Pope,eds.,FindingGodinAllThings,pp.140–61.NewYork:Crossroad.McOuat,Gordon.2001.‘CataloguingPower:Delineating“CompetentNat-uralists”andtheMeaningofSpeciesintheBritishMuseum.’BritishJournalfortheHistoryofScience34:1–28.Madden,E.H.1963.ChaunceyWrightandtheFoundationsofPragmatism.Seattle:UniversityofSeattlePress.Malthus,ThomasRobert.1826.AnEssayonthePrincipleofPopulation;Or,AViewofitsPastandPresentEffectsonHumanHappiness,withCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences505anInquiryintoOurProspectsRespectingtheFutureRemovalorMit-igationoftheEvilswhichitOccasions.6thedn.2vols.London:JohnMurray.Manasse,E.M.1973.‘PlatonismSincetheEnlightenment.’InP.P.Wiener,ed.,DictionaryoftheHistoryofIdeas,vol.3,pp.515–25.5vols.NewYork:Scribner’s.Mandelbaum,Maurice.1958.‘Darwin’sReligiousViews.’JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas19:363–78.Manier,Edward.1978.TheYoungDarwinandHisCulturalCircle:AStudyofInfluenceswhichHelpedShapetheLanguageandLogicoftheFirstDraftsoftheTheoryofNaturalSelection.Dordrecht:Reidel.Marchant,James,ed.1916.AlfredRusselWallace:LettersandReminis-cences.2vols.London:Cassell.Margulis,Lynn.1981.CellEvolution.SanFrancisco:Freeman.Marx,Karl.[1859]1959.PrefacetoAContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy.ReprintedinL.S.Feuer,ed.,MarxandEngels:BasicWritingsonPoliticsandPhilosophy,pp.83–7.London:Collins.Maryanski,A.andTurner,J.1992.TheSocialCage.PaloAlto:StanfordUniversityPress.MaynardSmith,John.1974.‘TheTheoryofGamesandtheEvolutionofAnimalConflicts.’JournalofTheoreticalBiology47:209–21.1978.‘OptimizationTheoryinEvolution.’AnnualReviewofEcologyandSystematics8:31–56.MaynardSmith,JohnandSzathmary,Eors.¨1995.TheMajorTransitionsinEvolution.Oxford:Freeman.Mayr,E.1963.AnimalSpeciesandEvolution.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.1970.Populations,Species,andEvolution.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.1976.‘TypologicalversusPopulationThinking.’InEvolutionandtheDi-versityofLife,pp.26–30.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.1982.TheGrowthofBiologicalThought:Diversity,Evolution,andInher-itance.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.1991.OneLongArgument:CharlesDarwinandtheGenesisofModernEvolutionaryThought.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Mayr,ErnstandProvine,WilliamB.,eds.1980.TheEvolutionarySynthesis:PerspectivesontheUnificationofBiology.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Mayr,Otto.1986.Authority,LibertyandAutomaticMachineryinEarlyModernEurope.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.Medawar,P.1967.ReviewofEnglishtranslationofTeilharddeChardin1955.InTheArtoftheSoluble,pp.71–84.London:Methuen.FirstpublishedinMind70(1961):99–106.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n506ListofreferencesMill,J.S.[1843]1973.ASystemofLogic,RatiocinativeandInductive,BeingaConnectedViewofthePrinciplesofEvidence,andtheMethodsofScientificInvestigation.London:Longman.ReprintedinJ.M.Robson,ed.,TheCollectedWorksofJohnStuartMill,33vols.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1963–91,vols.viiandviii(1973).1872.ASystemofLogic,RatiocinativeandInductive,BeingaCon-nectedViewofthePrinciplesofEvidence,andtheMethodsofScientificInvestigation.8thedn.London:Longman.1874.ThreeEssaysonReligion:Nature,theUtilityofReligion,andTheism.London:Longman.Miller,Geoffrey.2000.TheMatingMind:HowSexualChoiceShapedtheEvolutionofHumanNature.London:Heinemann.Miller,K.1999.FindingDarwin’sGod.NewYork:HarperandRow.Millikan,Ruth.1984.Language,ThoughtandOtherBiologicalCategories.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.1989.‘InDefenseofProperFunctions.’PhilosophyofScience56:288–302.1993.WhiteQueenPsychologyandOtherEssaysforAlice.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.Mills,S.andBeatty,J.1978.‘ThePropensityInterpretationofFitness.’Phi-losophyofScience46:263–88.Milton,JohnR.1981.‘TheOriginandDevelopmentoftheConceptofthe“LawsofNature”.’EuropeanJournalofSociology22:173–95.Mineka,F.E.andLindley,D.N.,eds.1972.TheLaterLettersofJohnStuartMill.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.Vols.xiv–xviiofTheCollectedWorksofJohnStuartMill.Mitman,Gregg.1997.‘TheBiologyofPeace.’BiologyandPhilosophy12:259–64.Mivart,StGeorgeJackson.1871.OntheGenesisofSpecies.London:Macmillan.Montesquieu,Charles-LouisdeSecondat,baronde.1748.Del’espritdeslois.TranslatedandeditedbyAnneM.Cohler,BasiaCarolynMillerandHaroldSamuelStone.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1989.Moore,G.E.[1903]1988.PrincipiaEthica.NewYork:PrometheusBooks.Moore,JamesR.1979.ThePost-DarwinianControversies.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.1985.‘HerbertSpencer’sHenchmen:TheEvolutionofProtestantLiberalsinLateNineteenth-CenturyAmerica.’InJohnDurant,ed.,DarwinismandDivinity:EssaysonEvolutionandReligiousBelief,pp.76–100.Oxford:Blackwell.1986.‘SocializingDarwinism:HistoriographyandtheFortunesofaPhrase.’InLesLevidow,ed.,ScienceasPolitics,pp.38–80.London:FreeAssociationBooks.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences5071991.‘DeconstructingDarwinism:ThePoliticsofEvolutioninthe1860s.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology24:353–408.1997.‘Wallace’sMalthusianMoment:TheCommonContextRevisited.’InLightman1997,pp.290–311.2001.GoodBreeding:ScienceandSocietyinaDarwinianAge:StudyGuide.A426StudyGuide,sections1–2.MiltonKeynes:OpenUniver-sityPress.2005.‘RevolutionoftheSpaceInvaders:DarwinandWallaceontheGeographyofLife.’InDavidN.LivingstoneandCharlesW.J.Withers,eds.,GeographyandRevolution,pp.106–32.Chicago:Univer-sityofChicagoPress.Morrell,J.B.1990.‘Professionalisation.’InOlbyetal.1990,pp.980–9.1997.ScienceatOxford,1914–1939:TransforminganArtsUniversity.Oxford:Clarendon.Morrell,J.B.andThackray,A.1981.GentlemenofScience:EarlyYearsoftheBritishAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Muller-Wille,Staffan.¨2007.‘CollectionandCollation:TheoryandPracticeofLinnaeanBotany.’StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofBiologicalandBiomedicalSciences38:541–62.Munoz-Rubio,Julio.˜1999.‘OnDarwinianDiscourse,PartI:PoliticalEcon-omyNaturalized;PartII:Re-anthropologizingNaturebyNaturalizingCompetitiveMan.’ScienceasCulture8:47–74,171–87.Murphy,J.1982.Evolution,Morality,andtheMeaningofLife.Totowa,N.J.:RowmanandLittlefield.Nicolson,Malcolm.1987.‘AlexandervonHumboldt,HumboldtianScienceandtheOriginsoftheStudyofVegetation.’HistoryofScience25:167–94.1990.‘AlexandervonHumboldtandtheGeographyofVegetation.’InA.CunninghamandN.Jardine,eds.,RomanticismandtheSciences,pp.169–85.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Nietzsche,Friedrich.1887.TheGenealogyofMorals.Trans.DouglasSmith.Oxford:WorldsClassics,1998.Numbers,RonaldL.1992.TheCreationists:TheEvolutionofScientificCreationism.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Nyhart,LynnK.1996.‘NaturalHistoryandthe“New”Biology.’InJardine,SecordandSpary1996,pp.426–43.Olby,Robert.1966.OriginsofMendelism.London:Constable.1979.‘MendelnoMendelian?’HistoryofScience17:53–72.Olby,RobertC.,Cantor,GeoffreyN.,Christie,JohnR.R.andHodge,M.J.S.,eds.1990.CompaniontotheHistoryofModernScience.London:Routledge.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n508ListofreferencesOldroyd,DavidR.1980.DarwinianImpacts:AnIntroductiontotheDarwinianRevolution.Kensington,NSW:UniversityofNewSouthWalesPress.1984.‘HowDidDarwinArriveatHisTheory?TheSecondaryLiteratureto1982.’HistoryofScience22:325–74.1986.TheArchofKnowledge:AnIntroductoryStudyoftheHistoryofthePhilosophyandMethodologyofScience.London:Methuen.Orzack,S.andSober,E.1994.‘OptimalityModelsandtheTestofAdapta-tionism.’AmericanNaturalist143:361–80.2001.‘Adaptationism,PhylogeneticInertia,andtheMethodofCon-trolledComparisons.’InS.OrzackandE.Sober,eds.,Adaptation-ismandOptimality,pp.45–63.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Ospovat,Dov.1980.‘GodandNaturalSelection:TheDarwinianIdeaofDesign.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology13:169–94.1981.TheDevelopmentofDarwin’sTheory:NaturalHistory,NaturalTheology,andNaturalSelection,1838–1859.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Paley,William.[1785]1806.ThePrinciplesofMoralandPoliticalPhi-losophy.2vols.16thedn.London:R.Faulder.1stednpublishedin1785.1819.NaturalTheology;Or,EvidencesoftheExistenceandAttributesoftheDeityCollectedfromtheAppearancesofNature.19thedn.Vol.vinTheMiscellaneousWorksofWilliamPaley,D.D.,5vols,1820.London:Baldwyn.1stednpublishedin1802.Papineau,D.1984.‘RepresentationandExplanation.’PhilosophyofScience51:550–72.1987.RealityandRepresentation.Oxford:Blackwell.Parker,Andrew.2003.IntheBlinkofanEye.Cambridge,Mass.:PerseusPublishing.Passmore,John.1959.‘Darwin’sImpactonBritishMetaphysics.’VictorianStudies3:41–54.1970.ThePerfectibilityofMan.London:Duckworth.Paul,DianeB.1995.ControllingHumanHeredity:1865tothePresent.Amherst,N.Y.:HumanityBooks.Peacocke,Arthur.1985.‘BiologicalEvolutionandChristianTheology–YesterdayandToday.’InJ.Durant,ed.,DarwinismandDivinity:Es-saysonEvolutionandReligiousBelief,pp.101–30.Oxford:Blackwell.Peel,RobertandJones,Greta,eds.2005.HerbertSpencer:TheIntellectualLegacy.London:GaltonInstitute.Pennock,R.1998.TowerofBabel:ScientificEvidenceandtheNewCre-ationism.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences509Penny,D.,Foulds,L.andHendy,M.1982.‘TestingtheTheoryofEvolu-tionbyComparingPhylogeneticTreesConstructedfromFiveDifferentProteinSequences.’Nature297:197–200.Pessoa,Osvaldo.2001.‘CounterfactualHistories:TheBeginningofQuan-tumPhysics.’PhilosophyofScience68(Supp.):S519–30.Pinker,Steven.1994.TheLanguageInstinct:HowtheMindCreatesLan-guage.NewYork:Morrow.1997.HowTheMindWorks.NewYork:Norton.Pittinger,Mark.1993.AmericanSocialistsandEvolutionaryThought,1870–1920.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress.Plantinga,A.1997.‘MethodologicalNaturalism.’PerspectivesonScienceandChristianFaith49:143–54.Poundstone,William.1985.TheRecursiveUniverse:CosmicComplexityandtheLimitsofScientificKnowledge.NewYork:Morrow.Powell,Baden.1861.‘OntheStudyoftheEvidencesofChristianity.’Inthemulti-authoredvolumeEssaysandReviews,pp.94–144.London:Longman.Price,Richard.1999.BritishSociety,1680–1880:Dynamism,ContainmentandChange.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Provine,W.B.1971.TheOriginsofTheoreticalPopulationGenetics.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Putnam,H.1975.‘TheMeaningofMeaning.’InK.Gunderson,ed.,Language,Mind,andKnowledge,pp.131–93.MinnesotaStudiesinthePhilosophyofScience,vii.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.ReprintedinH.Putnam,PhilosophicalPapers,2vols.,vol.ii:Mind,LanguageandReality,pp.215–71.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1975.Pyenson,LewisandSheets-Pyenson,Susan.1999.ServantsofNature:AHistoryofScientificInstitutions,EnterprisesandSensibilities.London:HarperCollins.Quine,W.1987.Quiddities:AnIntermittentlyPhilosophicalDictionary.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Raby,Peter.2001.AlfredRusselWallace:ALife.London:ChattoandWindus.Radick,Gregory.1998.‘TheOriginUnbound.’StudiesinHistoryandPhi-losophyofBiologicalandBiomedicalSciences29:349–57.2000.‘TwoExplanationsofEvolutionaryProgress.’BiologyandPhiloso-phy15:475–91.2002.ReviewofHacking1999.BritishJournalfortheHistoryofScience35:97–9.2003.‘CulturesofEvolutionaryBiology.’StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofBiologicalandBiomedicalSciences34:187–200.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n510Listofreferences2007.TheSimianTongue:TheLongDebateaboutAnimalLanguage.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Railton,Peter.1986.‘MoralRealism.’PhilosophicalReview95:163–207.Randall,JohnHerman,Jr.1977.PhilosophyAfterDarwin:Chaptersfor‘TheCareerofPhilosophy’,VolumeIII,andOtherEssays.Ed.BethJ.Singer.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Raup,D.1991.Extinction:BadGenesorBadLuck?NewYork:Norton.Ray,John.1692.TheWisdomofGodManifestedintheWorksoftheCre-ation,inTwoParts.2ndedn.London:SamuelSmith.Firstpublishedin1691.Recker,D.1987.‘CausalEfficacy:TheStructureofDarwin’sArgumentStrategyintheOriginofSpecies.’PhilosophyofScience54:147–75.Rehbock,Philip.1983.ThePhilosophicalNaturalists:ThemesinEarlyNineteenth-CenturyPhilosophicalBiology.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress.Reichenbach,B.R.1976.‘NaturalEvilsandNaturalLaws:ATheodicyforNaturalEvil.’InternationalPhilosophicalQuarterly16:179–96.Reynolds,Andrew.2002.Peirce’sScientificMetaphysics:ThePhilosophyofChance,Law,andEvolution.Vanderbilt:VanderbiltUniversityPress.Richards,Evelleen.1983.‘DarwinandtheDescentofWomen.’InDavidOldroydandIanLangham,eds.,TheWiderDomainofEvolutionaryThought,pp.57–111.Dordrecht:Reidel.1994.‘APoliticalAnatomyofMonsters,HopefulandOtherwise:Ter-atogeny,Transcendentalism,andEvolutionaryTheorizing.’Isis85:377–411.1997.‘RedrawingtheBoundaries:DarwinianScienceandVictorianWomenIntellectuals.’InLightman1997,pp.119–42.Richards,RichardA.1997.‘DarwinandtheInefficiencyofArtificialSelec-tion.’StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofScience28:75–97.Richards,RobertJ.1987.DarwinandtheEmergenceofEvolutionaryTheo-riesofMindandBehavior.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.1992.TheMeaningofEvolution:TheMorphologicalConstructionandIdeologicalReconstructionofDarwin’sTheory.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.1999.‘Darwin’sRomanticBiology:TheFoundationofHisEvolutionaryEthics.’InJ.MaienscheinandM.Ruse,eds.,BiologyandtheFoundationofEthics,pp.113–53.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.2002a.‘TheLinguisticCreationofMan:CharlesDarwin,AugustSchle-icher,ErnstHaeckel,andtheMissingLinkinNineteenth-CenturyEvo-lutionaryTheory.’InMatthiasDorries,ed.,¨ExperimentinginTongues:StudiesinScienceandLanguage,pp.21–48.Stanford:StanfordUniver-sityPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences5112002b.TheRomanticConceptionofLife:ScienceandPhilosophyintheAgeofGoethe.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Ridley,Mark,ed.1994.ADarwinSelection.2ndedn.London:FontanaPress.Ritvo,Harriet.1987.TheAnimalEstate:TheEnglishandOtherCreaturesintheVictorianAge.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Roger,Jacques.1997a.TheLifeSciencesinEighteenth-CenturyFrenchThought.Ed.KeithR.Benson.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.1997b.Buffon:ALifeinNaturalHistory.Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress.Rose,Hilary.2000.‘ColonisingtheSocialSciences?’InHilaryandStevenRose,eds.,Alas,PoorDarwin:ArgumentsAgainstEvolutionaryPsy-chology,pp.106–28.London:JonathanCape.Rose,Jonathan.2001.TheIntellectualLifeofTheBritishWorkingClasses.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.Rosen,Michael.1996.OnVoluntaryServitude:FalseConsciousnessandtheTheoryofIdeology.Cambridge:PolityPress.Rosenberg,Alexander.1990.‘TheBiologicalJustificationofEthics:ABestCaseScenario.’SocialPolicyandPhilosophy8:86–101.ReprintedinRosenberg2000,pp.118–36.1995.PhilosophyofSocialScience.2ndedn.Oxford:WestviewPress.2000.DarwinisminPhilosophy,SocialScienceandPolicy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Rudge,DavidW.1999.‘TakingthePepperedMothwithaGrainofSalt.’BiologyandPhilosophy14:9–37.Rudwick,M.J.S.1982.‘CharlesDarwininLondon:TheIntegrationofPublicandPrivateScience.’Isis73:186–206.1986.‘TheShapeandMeaningofEarthHistory.’InD.LindbergandR.Numbers,eds.,GodandNature:HistoricalEssaysontheEncounterbetweenChristianityandScience,pp.296–321.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.2005.LyellandDarwin,Geologists:StudiesintheEarthSciencesintheAgeofReform.Aldershot:Ashgate.2008.WorldsBeforeAdam:TheReconstructionofGeohistoryintheAgeofReform.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Rupke,NicolaasA.1983.TheGreatChainofHistory.Oxford:OxfordUni-versityPress.1994.RichardOwen:VictorianNaturalist.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.1996.‘Foreword.’InGillispie[1951]1996.Ruse,Michael.1975.‘Darwin’sDebttoPhilosophy:AnExaminationoftheInfluenceofthePhilosophicalIdeasofJohnF.W.HerschelandWilliamWhewellontheDevelopmentofCharlesDarwin’sCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n512ListofreferencesTheoryofEvolution.’StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofScience6:159–81.1985.Sociobiology:SenseorNonsense?2ndedn.Dordrecht:Reidel.1987.‘DarwinandDeterminism.’Zygon22:419–42.1992.‘Darwinism.’InKellerandLloyd1992,pp.74–80.1993a.‘EvolutionandProgress.’TrendsinEcologyandEvolution8:55–9.1993b.TheDarwinianParadigm:EssaysonitsHistory,Philosophy,andReligiousImplications.London:Routledge.1994.EvolutionaryNaturalism:SelectedEssays.London:Routledge.1996.MonadtoMan:TheConceptofProgressinEvolutionaryBiology.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.1999a.TheDarwinianRevolution:ScienceRedinToothandClaw.2ndedn.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.1999b.MysteryofMysteries:IsEvolutionaSocialConstruction?Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.2000a.CanaDarwinianbeaChristian?TheRelationshipbetweenSci-enceandReligion.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.2000b.TheEvolutionWars:AGuidetotheDebates.SantaBarbara:ABC-CLIO.2000c.‘DarwinandthePhilosophers:EpistemologicalFactorsintheDevelopmentandReceptionoftheTheoryoftheOriginofSpecies.’InCreathandMaienschein2000,pp.3–26.Ruse,MichaelandRichards,RobertJ.,eds.2009.TheCambridgeCompan-iontothe‘OriginofSpecies’.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Ruse,M.andWilson,E.O.1985.‘TheEvolutionofMorality.’NewScientist1478:108–28.1986.‘MoralPhilosophyasAppliedScience.’Philosophy61:173–92.ReprintedinSober1994a,pp.421–38.Russett,Cynthia.1989.SexualScience.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniver-sityPress.Sahlins,Marshall.1976.TheUseandAbuseofBiology:AnAnthropo-logicalCritiqueofSociobiology.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.Samuels,R.1998.‘EvolutionaryPsychologyandtheMassiveModularityThesis.’BritishJournalforThePhilosophyofScience49:575–92.Sandow,Alexander.1938.‘SocialFactorsintheOriginofDarwinism.’Quar-terlyReviewofBiology13:315–26.Sapp,Jan.1994.EvolutionbyAssociation:AHistoryofSymbiosis.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Sarkar,Sahotra,ed.1992.TheFoundersofEvolutionaryGenetics.Dordrecht:Kluwer.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences513Scarre,Geoffrey.1998.‘MillonInductionandScientificMethod.’InJohnSkorupski,ed.,TheCambridgeCompaniontoJohnStuartMill,pp.112–38.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Schaffer,Simon.1986.‘ScientificDiscoveriesandtheEndofNaturalPhi-losophy.’SocialStudiesofScience16:387–420.1990.‘GeniusinRomanticNaturalPhilosophy.’InA.CunninghamandN.Jardine,eds.,RomanticismandtheSciences,pp.82–98.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.1996.‘OurTrustyFriendtheWatch.’LondonReviewofBooks31October:11–12.Schiebinger,Londa.1996.‘GenderandNaturalHistory.’InJardine,SecordandSpary1996,pp.163–77.Schindewolf,O.H.1936.Palaontologie,EntwicklungslehreundGenetik:¨KritikundSynthese.Berlin:Borntrager.¨Schleicher,August,1863.DieDarwinscheTheorieunddieSprach-wissenschaft.Weimar:Bohlau.EnglishtranslationinK.Koerner¨1983.1865.UberdieBedeutungderSprachef¨urdieNaturgeschichtedes¨Menschen.Weimar:Bohlau.EnglishtranslationinK.Koerner¨1983.Schmidt,Alfred.1971.TheConceptofNatureinMarx.Trans.BenFowkes,fromthe1962Germanedition.London:NLB.Schuster,JohnA.andYeo,RichardR.1986.ThePoliticsandRhetoricofScientificMethod:HistoricalStudies.Dordrecht:Reidel.Schwartz,JeffreyH.1999.SuddenOrigins:Fossils,Genes,andtheEmer-genceofSpecies.NewYork:JohnWileyandSons.Schweber,S.S.1977.‘TheOriginoftheOriginRevisited.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology10:229–316.1980.‘DarwinandthePoliticalEconomists:DivergenceofCharacter.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology13:195–289.1983.‘Demons,Angels,andProbability:SomeAspectsofBritishScienceintheNineteenthCentury.’InA.ShimonyandH.Feshbach,eds.,Phy-sicsasNaturalPhilosophy,pp.319–63.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.Searle,John.1980.‘Minds,BrainsandPrograms.’BehavioralandBrainSciences3:417–58.1994.TheRediscoveryoftheMind.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.Secord,JamesA.1981.‘Nature’sFancy:CharlesDarwinandtheBreedingofPigeons.’Isis72:163–86.1985.‘DarwinandtheBreeders:ASocialHistory.’InKohn1985a,519–42.1991.‘TheDiscoveryofaVocation:Darwin’sEarlyGeology.’BritishJour-nalfortheHistoryofScience24:133–57.1997.‘Introduction.’ToCharlesLyell,PrinciplesofGeology,1830–3,single-volumeabridgement.Harmondsworth:Penguin.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n514Listofreferences2000.VictorianSensation:TheExtraordinaryPublication,Reception,andSecretAuthorshipofVestigesoftheNaturalHistoryofCreation.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.(Ed.)2008.EvolutionaryWritings[ofCharlesDarwin],IncludingtheAu-tobiographies.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Sedgwick,A.[1860]1973.‘ObjectionstoMr.Darwin’sTheoryoftheOriginofSpecies.’InHull1973,pp.159–70.Firstpublishedin1860intheSpectator24March,pp.285–6and7April,pp.334–5.Sedley,David.2007.CreationismandItsCriticsinAntiquity.BerkeleyandLondon:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Sellars,Wilfrid.1963.‘PhilosophyandtheScientificImageofMan.’InSci-ence,PerceptionandReality,pp.1–40.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.Semmel,B.1970.TheRiseofFreeTradeImperialism:ClassicalPoliti-calEconomy,theEmpireofFreeTradeandImperialism,1750–1850.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Shapin,Steven.1982.‘HistoryofScienceanditsSociologicalReconstruc-tions.’HistoryofScience20:157–211.1996.TheScientificRevolution.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Shapin,StevenandBarnes,Barry.1979.‘DarwinandSocialDarwinism:PurityandHistory.’InBarryBarnesandStevenShapin,eds.,NaturalOrder:HistoricalStudiesofScientificCulture,pp.125–42.London:Sage.Simpson,G.G.1944.TempoandModeinEvolution.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.1967.TheMeaningofEvolution.Rev.edn.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.Singer,Peter.1999.ADarwinianLeft:Politics,EvolutionandCooperation.London:WeidenfeldandNicolson.Skinner,B.F.1966.‘SelectionbyConsequences.’Science153:652–4.Skyrms,B.1996.TheEvolutionoftheSocialContract.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Sloan,PhillipR.1985.‘Darwin’sInvertebrateProgram,1826–1836:Precon-ditionsforTransformism.’InKohn1985a,71–120.1986.‘Darwin,VitalMatter,andtheTransformismofSpecies.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology19:369–445.2001.‘“TheSenseofSublimity”:DarwinonNatureandDivinity.’Osiris16:251–69.Smart,J.J.C.1959.‘SensationsandBrainProcesses.’PhilosophicalReview88:141–56.Smith,CharlesH.,ed.1991.AlfredRusselWallace:AnAnthologyofHisShorterWritings.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences515Smith,Crosbie.1998.TheScienceofEnergy:ACulturalHistoryofEnergyPhysicsinVictorianBritain.London:AthlonePress.SmithJ.E.H.,ed.2006.TheProblemofAnimalGenerationinEarlyModernPhilosophy.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Smocovitis,V.B.1999.‘The1959DarwinCentennialCelebrationinAmer-ica.’Osiris14:274–323.Snyder,Laura.2006.ReformingPhilosophy:AVictorianDebateonScienceandSociety.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Sober,Elliott.1984.TheNatureofSelection:EvolutionaryTheoryinPhilo-sophicalFocus.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.1988.ReconstructingthePast:Parsimony,EvolutionandInference.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.1993.PhilosophyofBiology.Boulder:WestviewPress.1994a.ConceptualIssuesinEvolutionaryBiology.2ndedn.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.1994b.‘Evolution,PopulationThinking,andEssentialism.’InSober1994a,pp.161–90.FirstpublishedinPhilosophyofScience47(1980):350–83.1994c.‘DidEvolutionMakeUsPsychologicalEgoists?’InFromABi-ologicalPointofView,pp.8–27.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.1999.‘PhysicalismfromaProbabilisticPointofView.’PhilosophicalStudies95:135–74.2002.‘PhilosophyofBiology.’InNicholasBunninandEricTsui-James,eds.,TheBlackwellCompaniontoPhilosophy,2ndedn,pp.317–44.Oxford:Blackwell.Sober,Elliott.1980.‘Evolution,PopulationThinking,andEssentialism.’PhilosophyofScience47:350–83.Sober,ElliottandWilson,DavidSloan.1998.UntoOthers.TheEvolutionandPsychologyofUnselfishBehavior.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Spencer,Herbert.[1851]1970.SocialStatics:Or,theConditionsEssentialtoHumanHappinessSpecifiedandtheFirstofThemDeveloped.London:Chapman.Reprintedinfacsimile,Farnborough:Gregg.[1864–7]1884.ThePrinciplesofBiology.2vols.London:WilliamandNorgate.ReprintedNewYork:D.Appleton.Sperber,D.1996.ExplainingCulture:ANaturalisticApproach.Oxford:Blackwell.Stamos,DavidN.1996.‘WasDarwinReallyaSpeciesNominalist?’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology29:127–44.1999.‘Darwin’sSpeciesCategoryRealism.’HistoryandPhilosophyoftheLifeSciences21:137–86.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n516Listofreferences2003.TheSpeciesProblem:BiologicalSpecies,Ontology,andtheMeta-physicsofBiology.NewYorkandLondon:LexingtonBooks.2007.DarwinandtheNatureofSpecies.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.Stark,Rodney.1996.TheRiseofChristianity.SanFrancisco:HarperCollins.Stenek,N.H.1976.ScienceandCreationintheMiddleAges:HenryofLangenstein(d.1397)onGenesis.NotreDameandLondon:UniversityofNotreDamePress.Stepan,NancyL.1987.‘Nature’s“PruningHook”:War,RaceandEvolution,1914–18.’InJ.M.W.Bean,ed.,PoliticalCultureofModernBritain:StudiesinMemoryofStephenKoss,pp.129–48.London:Hamilton.Sterelny,Kim.1990.TheRepresentationalTheoryofMind:AnIntroduction.Oxford:Blackwell.2000.TheEvolutionofAgencyandOtherEssays.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Sterelny,Kim.(forthcoming).‘MoralNativism:AScepticalResponse.’Sterelny,KimandGriffiths,PaulE.1999.SexandDeath:AnIntroductiontoPhilosophyofBiology.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Sterrett,SusanG.2002.‘Darwin’sAnalogyBetweenArtificialandNatu-ralSelection:HowDoesitGo?’StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofBiologicalandBiomedicalSciences33C:151–68.Stevenson,C.L.1944.EthicsandLanguage.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.Stoddart,D.R.,ed.1962.‘CoralIslands,byCharlesDarwin.’AtollResearchBulletin88:1–20.StrawsonP.F.1962,‘FreedomandResentment.’ProceedingsoftheBritishAcademy48:1–25.Strick,JamesE.2000.SparksofLife:DarwinismandtheVictorianDebatesoverSpontaneousGeneration.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Sulloway,Frank.J.1982a.‘DarwinandHisFinches:TheEvolutionofaLegend.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology15:1–53.1982b.‘Darwin’sConversion:TheBeagleVoyageanditsAftermath.’Jour-naloftheHistoryofBiology15:327–98.Swetlitz,Marc.1999.‘AmericanJewishReponsestoDarwinandEvolution-aryTheory,1860–1890.’InR.L.NumbersandJ.Stenhouse,eds.,Dis-seminatingDarwinism:TheRoleofPlace,Race,Religion,andGender,pp.209–45.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Symons,D.1979.TheEvolutionofHumanSexuality.Oxford:OxfordUni-versityPress.Tammone,William.1995.‘Competition,theDivisionofLabor,andDar-win’sPrincipleofDivergence.’JournaloftheHistoryofBiology28:109–31.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences517Taub,Liba.1993.‘EvolutionaryIdeasand“Empirical”Methods:TheAnal-ogybetweenLanguageandSpeciesinWorksbyLyellandSchleicher.’BritishJournalfortheHistoryofScience26:171–93.Tax,Sol,ed.1960.EvolutionAfterDarwin.3vols.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.TeilharddeChardin,P.1955.Lephenom´enehumaine`.Paris:EditionsdeSeuil.PublishedinEnglishasThePhenomenonofMan,London:Collins,1959.Thagard,Paul.1978.‘TheBestExplanation:CriteriaforTheoryChoice.’JournalofPhilosophy75:78–92.Thompson,Paul.1988.TheStructureofBiologicalTheories.NewYork:SUNYPress.Todes,DanielP.1989.DarwinwithoutMalthus:TheStruggleforExis-tenceinRussianEvolutionaryThought.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Todhunter,I.1876.WilliamWhewell,D.D.:AnAccountofHisWritingswithSelectionsfromhisLiteraryandScientificCorrespondence.2vols.NewYork:Macmillan.Tooby,J.andCosmides,L.1992.‘ThePsychologicalFoundationsofCulture.’InBarkow,CosmidesandTooby1992,pp.19–136.Tort,Patrick,ed.1996.Dictionnairedudarwinismeetdel’evolution´.3vols.Paris:PressesUniversitairesdeFrance.Turner,FrankM.1978.‘TheVictorianConflictbetweenScienceandReli-gion:AProfessionalDimension.’Isis69:356–76.ReprintedinTurner1993,pp.171–200.1993.ContestingCulturalAuthority:EssaysinVictorianCulturalLife.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Tyndall,John.[1874]1970.‘PresidentialAddress’totheBelfastmeetingoftheBritishAssociationfortheAdvancementofScience.InG.Basalla,W.ColemanandR.Kargon,eds.,VictorianScience,pp.436–78.NewYork:Anchor.Valery,Paul.´1973–4.Cahiers.Ed.JudithRobinson.2vols.Paris:EditiondelaPleiade.´Vermeij,G.J.1987.EvolutionandEscalation:AnEcologicalHistoryofLife.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Vialleton,L.1929.L’originedesetresvivants:L’illusiontransformisteˆ.Paris:Plon.Wagar,W.1972.GoodTidings:TheBeliefinProgressfromDarwintoMarcuse.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.Wallace,AlfredRussel.[1864]1991.‘TheOriginofHumanRacesandtheAntiquityofManDeducedfromtheTheoryof“NaturalSelection.”’AnthropologicalReview2:clviii–clxxxvii.ReprintedinSmith1991,pp.14–26.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n518Listofreferences1870.‘TheLimitsofNaturalSelectionasAppliedtoMan.’InContribu-tionstotheTheoryofNaturalSelection:ASeriesofEssays,pp.332–71.London:Macmillan.1905.MyLife:ARecordofEventsandOpinions.London:ChapmanandHall.Wallwork,E.1982.‘ThouShaltLoveThyNeighbourasThyself:TheFreudianCritique.’JournalofReligiousEthics10:264–319.Walters,MaxandStow,E.A.2001.Darwin’sMentor:JohnStevensHenslow,1796–1861.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Ward,K.1996.God,ChanceandNecessity.Oxford:Oneworld.Waters,C.Kenneth.1986.‘TakingAnalogicalInferenceSeriously:Darwin’sArgumentfromArtificialSelection.’PSA1986,vol.1,pp.502–13.EastLansing,Mich.:PhilosophyofScienceAssociation.Weaver,IanC.G.etal.2004.‘Epigeneticprogrammingbymaternalbe-haviour.’NatureNeuroscience7:847–54.Weeks,Sophie.2007.‘FrancisBaconandtheArt-NatureDistinction.’Ambix54:117–45.Wedgwood,Hensleigh.1866.OntheOriginofLanguage.London:Trubner.¨Weikart,Richard.1993.‘TheOriginsofSocialDarwinisminGermany,1859–1895.’JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas54:469–88.1995.‘ARecentlyDiscoveredDarwinLetteronSocialDarwinism.’Isis86:609–11.1998a.‘Laissez-FaireSocialDarwinismandIndividualistCompetitioninDarwinandHuxley.’TheEuropeanLegacy3:17–30.1998b.SocialistDarwinism:EvolutioninGermanSocialistThoughtfromMarxtoBernstein.SanFrancisco:InternationalScholars.2003.‘ProgressthroughRacialExtermination:SocialDarwinism,Eugen-ics,andPacifisminGermany,1860–1918.’GermanStudiesReview26:273–94.2006.FromDarwintoHitler:EvolutionaryEthics,Eugenics,andRacisminGermany.London:PalgraveMacmillan.Weinberg,Steven.2001.‘TheFutureofScience,andtheUniverse.’NewYorkReviewofBooks15November:58–63.Weindling,PaulJ.1991.DarwinismandSocialDarwinisminImperialGermany:TheContributionoftheCellBiologistOscarHertwig(1849–1922).Stuttgart:GustavFischerVerlag.1998.‘DissectingGermanSocialDarwinism:HistoricizingtheBiologyoftheOrganicState.’ScienceinContext11:619–37.Weinshank,DonaldJ.etal.,eds.1990.AConcordancetoCharlesDarwin’sNotebooks,1836–1844.Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress.Weiss,SheilaF.1987.RaceHygieneandNationalEfficiency:TheEu-genicsofWilhelmSchallmayer.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\nListofreferences519Wells,Algernon.1834.OnAnimalInstinct.Colchester:Longman,Rees,Orme,Brown,GreenandLongman.[Whewell,William.]1831.ReviewofHerschel1830.QuarterlyReview45:374–407.1835.Reviewof3rd(1835)ednofLyell1830–33.QuarterlyReview53:406–48.1840.ThePhilosophyoftheInductiveSciences,FoundeduponTheirHistory.2vols.London:JohnW.Parker.1849.OfInduction,withEspecialReferencetoMr.J.StuartMill’sSystemofLogic.London:JohnW.Parker.1853.ThePluralityofWorlds.London:JohnW.Parker.1864.AstronomyandGeneralPhysicsConsideredwithReferencetoNaturalTheology.London:Pickering.7thedn1stednpublishedin1833.Whiten,A.andByrne,R.,eds.1997.MachiavellianIntelligenceII:Exten-sionsandEvaluations.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Wiener,PhilipP.1949.EvolutionandtheFoundersofPragmatism.Cam-bridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Wiley,E.1981.Phylogenetics:TheTheoryandPracticeofPhylogeneticSys-tematics.NewYork:JohnWiley.Williams,G.C.1966.AdaptationandNaturalSelection.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.Wilson,DavidB.1984.‘APhysicist’sAlternativetoMaterialism:theReli-giousThoughtofGeorgeGabrielStokes.’VictorianStudies28:69–96.Wilson,E.O.1975.Sociobiology:TheNewSynthesis.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.1978.OnHumanNature.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.1992.TheDiversityofLife.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.Wilson,J.Dover.1951.WhatHappensinHamlet.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Winch,Donald.1987.Malthus.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Winsor,MaryP.2006.‘TheCreationoftheEssentialismStory:AnExerciseinMetahistory.’HistoryandPhilosophyoftheLifeSciences28:149–74.Wittgenstein,Ludwig.[1922]1961.TractatusLogico-Philosophicus.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.Wood,EllenM.1991.ThePristineCultureofCapitalism:AHistoricalEssayonOldRegimesandModernStates.London:Verso.Woese,C.R.1998.‘DefaultTaxonomy:ErnstMayr’sViewoftheMicrobialWorld.’ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica95:11043–6.Woese,C.R.,Kandler,O.andWheelis,M.L.1990.‘TowardsaNaturalSys-temofOrganisms:ProposalfortheDomainsArchaea,Bacteria,andCambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009\n520ListofreferencesEucarya.’ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica87:4576–9.Wooldridge,D.1963.TheMachineryoftheBrain.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.Wright,Chauncey.1865.‘ThePhilosophyofHerbertSpencer.’NorthAmericanReview100:423–76.1871.‘TheGenesisofSpecies.’TheNorthAmericanReview113:63–103.ReprintedinabridgedforminHull1973,pp.384–408.2000.TheEvolutionaryPhilosophyofChaunceyWright.3vols.Eds.FrankX.RyanandEdwardH.Madden.Bristol:ThoemmesPress.Wright,Larry.1976.TeleologicalExplanations:AnEtiologicalAnalysisofGoalsandFunctions.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Wright,Robert.1994.TheMoralAnimal.NewYork:Pantheon.Wynne-Edwards,V.C.1962.AnimalDispersioninRelationtoSocialBehaviour.Edinburgh:OliverandBoyd.Yeo,RichardR.1979.‘WilliamWhewell,NaturalTheologyandthePhilos-ophyofScienceinMid-NineteenthCenturyBritain.’AnnalsofScience36:493–516.1993.DefiningScience:WilliamWhewell,NaturalKnowledgeandPublicDebateinEarlyVictorianBritain.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Young,RobertM.1985a.Darwin’sMetaphor:Nature’sPlaceinVictorianCulture.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.1985b.‘DarwinismIsSocial.’InKohn1985a,609–38.Zammito,JohnH.2004.ANiceDerangementofEpistemes:Post-PositivismintheStudyofSciencefromQuinetoLatour.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Zirkle,Conway.1946.‘TheEarlyHistoryoftheIdeaoftheInheritanceofAc-quiredCharacteristicsandofPangenesis.’TransactionsoftheAmericanPhilosophicalSociety35:91–150.Zittel,Karlvon.1895.‘PaleontologyandtheBiogeneticLaw.’NaturalScience6:305–12.CambridgeCollectionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2009