*Darwin explicitly rejected
the Darwinism of Dawkins, Dennett and the 38 Nobel Laureates*
There is a particular sub-species of atheists that likes to trace
the rationale of their thinking back to Charles Darwin. Darwin, as we see in
this quote from his 1859 book, ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL
SELECTION: OR, THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE, did
not reject a * plan of creation *,
which he considered to be *a fact*, but held that it was the task of science to
provide natural causal explanations:
A "cottage industry".
There is a
particular sub-species of atheists that likes to trace the rationale of their
thinking back to Charles Darwin. Zoologist, Prof. Richard Dawkins, for
example, is a conspicuous and vocal proponent of this position:
"We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully
'designed' to have come into existence by chance. How, then, did they
come
into existence? The answer, Darwin's answer, is by gradual,
step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial
entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance.
Each
successive change in the gradual evolutionary process was simple
enough, relative to its predecessor, to have arisen by chance." (THE BLIND
WATCHMAKER; 1986)
Prof. Daniel
Dennett, of Tufts University, subscribes to a similar view-point:
"The process of natural selection feeds on randomness, it feeds on
accident
and
contingency, and it gradually improves the fit between whatever organisms
there
are and the environment in which they're being selected. But there's no
predictability about what particular accidents are going to be exploited in
this
process." (pbs.org)
"Whereas people used to think of meaning coming from on high and being
ordained from the top down, now we have Darwin saying, No, all of this design
can
happen, all of this purpose can emerge from the bottom up, without any
direction at all." (http: //216.92.11.9/
portal/Daniel_Dennett/)
The only
difficulty with this line of reasoning is that its key component cannot be
found in Darwin. Yes, Darwin believed that the great variety of species
came about, in his own words, "by the accumulation of innumerable slight
variations"; but what he did not believe was that this evolutionary
process could in any way happen "by chance." Darwin, in fact,
was a consistent enemy of the idea of chance as a cause.
38
Nobel Laureates.
One of the
latest attempts to introduce randomness and blind chance into evolution comes
from a group of 38 Nobel Laureates. In a letter, dated September 9, 2005
and appearing on the stationary of the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, the
Nobelists, not all biologists or even scientists, sent to the Kansas State
Board of Education a declaration regarding evolutionary theory and its rights
in schools.
The immediate
purpose of the statement was to help block the mention of the theory of
"intelligent design" in the classroom, that is to say, in precisely
the place where various theories about a subject are suppose to be mentioned
and discussed, and to inspire, according to the common expression: "a free
and open exchange of ideas".
Let's take a look at the Laureates statement:
"We, Nobel Laureates, are writing in defense of science.
We reject efforts by the proponents of so-called ³intelligent
design² to politicize scientific inquiry and urge the Kansas
State Board of Education to maintain Darwinian evolution as
the sole curriculum and science standard in the State of Kansas. . . .
We are also concerned by the Board's recommendation of August
8, 2005 to allow standards that include greater criticism of evolution. .
."
The great
impetus for the scientific method began with Francis Bacon rejecting the
dependence of science upon the argument from authority; and now this is where
it has all ended up: 38 Nobel Laureates demanding that Darwinian evolution be
the "sole" version of a theory presented in biology class! The
signers claim that they want the kids of Kansas to be taught exclusively
Darwinian evolution, but actually the Nobelists themselves have crafted their
own particular version of evolution that strays in major points from Darwinian
orthodoxy. When it is looked at, it will be found that the
Laureates' understanding of evolution contradicts that of Charles Darwin and,
for that matter, current thinking. So it is hard to see how the
Laureates' recommendation can be helpful to the students of Kansas from
the perspective of either history or science.
The statement
in part reads thus:
"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution
is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned
process of random variation and natural selection."
Darwin
and the "Creator".
The Nobels' formulation of evolution cannot be found in Darwin. The first and
most consequential manipulation of his theory of evolution is its description
as "the result of an unguided, unplanned process".
Darwin, as we
see in this quote from his 1859 book, ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF
NATURAL SELECTION: OR, THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR
LIFE, did not reject a "plan of creation", which he considered to be
"a fact", but held that it was the task of science to provide natural
causal explanations:
'It is
so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as
the
³plan of creation² or ³unity of design,² &c., and to think that
we
give an explanation when we only restate a fact.'
And again:
". . . may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be
formed
as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to
those
of man?" (ibid.)
Actually in the end, Darwin felt that in his system of the classification of
species he had identified a "plan of creation":
"Our classifications will come to be, as far as they can be so
made,
genealogies; and will then truly give what may be called
the
plan of creation." (ibid.)
The
English naturalist did not hold that evolution was an "unplanned
process", but only that the knowledge of certain purposes of the Creator
in such a "plan of creation" would not be within the
"scope" of science to explore, as we see here where Darwin declines
to pass judgment on a certain aesthetical belief held by some thinkers
regarding a specific motive of
the Creator:
". . . many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to
delight
man or
the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific
discussion)." (Darwin, Charles; ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF
NATURAL SELECTION: OR, THE PRESERVATION OF
FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE; Modern Library, 1859)
Creation:
a belief and a theory.
While Darwin
does not challenge Creation as a fact, he does not, unlike the dogmatists of today's court decisions and
self-appointed "watch-dogs" of the separation of church and state,
exclude, as a proper subject of scientific analysis, the discussion of Creation
as a theory:
". . .it is almost as much opposed to the theory of natural selection as
to
that of special creation." (ibid.)
And again:
"Why, on the theory of Creation, should there be so much variety and
so
little real novelty? Why should all the parts and organs of many
independent beings, each supposed to have been separately created
for
its proper place in nature, be so commonly linked together by
graduated steps? Why should not Nature take a sudden leap from
structure to structure? On the theory of natural selection, we can
clearly understand why she should not; for natural selection acts
only
by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can
never
take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and
sure,
though slow steps." (ibid.)
Darwin
challenges the separate creation of each individual species; he does not
consider Creation in general as incompatible with his theory, although
incidentally, from this passage, he does consider the "theory of
punctuated equilibrium" as incompatible with his theory. Elsewhere
also he says: "weighty evidence can be opposed to the admission of great
and abrupt modifications" (ibid).
The courts and the ACLU
are trying to keep creationism out of the classroom, but that would mean
keeping Darwin out of the classroom because the argumentation of his whole book
is weighing the relative value of his thesis and that of the "theory of
creation".
Darwin, the one time divinity student, included in his book a letter by Canon
Charles Kingsley, expressing some theological reflections on a nobler concept
of God that evolutionary theory suggested at least to him:
"I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock
the
religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient
such
impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by
man,
namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz,
'as
subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion.' A celebrated
author and divine has written to me that 'he has gradually learnt to see that
it is
just
as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original
forms
capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe
that
He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action
of His
laws.'" (ibid.)
Does the theory of evolution mean an "unguided
process"?
Likewise there
is no reason to believe that Darwin held evolution to be "an
unguided" process.
"I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced
by
some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew
why it
is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by
descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural
selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of
ordinary
reproduction. The birth both of the species and of the individual are equally
parts
of that grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as
the
result of blind chance. The understanding revolts at such a conclusion,
whether or not we are able to believe that every slight variation of
structure,-
the
union of each pair in marriage, the dissemination of each seed,- and other
such
events, have all been ordained for some special purpose."
Note also the
following statement in which Darwin speaks of a God whose "works" are
such that their appearance
corresponds to the reality:
"He who believes that each equine species was independently created,
will,
I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency
to
vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner,
so as
often to become striped like the other species of the genus; and that
each
has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species
inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in
their
stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this
view
is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an
unknown, cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception;
I
would almost as soon believe, with the old and ignorant cosmogonists,
that
fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to
mock
the shells living on the seashore." (ibid.)
If the works of
God were not to be a deception, as Darwin's argument runs, the reality of
things, indeed, must be as they appear, or as elsewhere he says:
". . . certainly we ought not to believe that innumerable beings within
each
great class have been created with plain, but deceptive, marks
of
descent from a single parent" (ibid.).
That Darwin did
not oppose his theory to creation, can be seen from numerous quotes, such as
the following:
"Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view
that
each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords
better
with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator,
that
the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the
world
should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining
the
birth and death of the individual." (ibid.)
Often times
authors are wont to end their works on a lofty note or with a noble
thought. The usually very taut and sober thinking Darwin perhaps reveals
his heart when in the final paragraph of his work, he leaves us with this
reflection:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having
been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms
or
into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on
according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning
endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been,
and
are being evolved." (Ibid.,)
Compare that
passage to Dennett's version:
"When we replace the traditional idea of God the creator with the idea of
the
process of natural selection doing the creating, the creation is as wonderful
as
it
ever was. All that great design work had to be done. It just wasn't done by an
individual, it was done by this huge process, distributed over billions of
years."
(freeachive.info)
Oddly enough Dennett writes:
"The first and obvious sense in which Darwin's idea is dangerous is that
there's just no denying that it attracts fans who don't understand it and
misuse
it in all sorts of bad ways. This has always been the case since
the
early social Darwinists - which means that those of us who are lovers
and admirers of this theory have to protect it from some of its friends. . .
In the
beginning there must have been a cogitative being, as John
Locke
said. Darwin turned that round and said all the mind, all the
creativity
in the world can itself be the effect not the cause - it can
be
created with mindless processes." (Interview on harikunzru.com)
"Dan
Dennett", according to M.I.T.'s Marvin Minsky, "is our best
current philosopher. He is the next Bertrand Russell." No doubt he
probably is a very intelligent man, but it does seem that he should be able to
make the simple distinction between what he says and what Darwin said.
An
"unplanned universe" has no scientific meaning.
When the
Laureates define evolution as an "unplanned process", it may accord
with the ideological purposes of the manifesto, but it has no meaning
scientifically. If, indeed, evolution is planned, you may discover the
plan; if, on the other hand, evolution has no plan, there would be no way of
knowing that. So it is, in any case, a philosophically pointless
statement. This realm outright on the other side of eternity, they could,
at least, have politely declared, as Darwin did, to be "beyond the scope
of scientific discussion", or beyond the limits of the method which
scientists adopt. Isn't the science of which they presume themselves to
be the defenders, suppose to be, after all, about "falsifiable
statements"?
Darwin clearly
recognized, what the Nobel Laureates do not, namely, that, although a
"plan of creation" was, in his words, "beyond the scope of
scientific discussion", it does not logically follow that there is not
such a plan.
Are
variations "random"?
The first principle of evolution mentioned in the declaration is "random
variations". As in the case of describing the process as
"unplanned", so also in the case of variations, it is the purpose of
the Laureates to close out any mention of "intelligent design" in the
classroom by characterizing it in a way that would in principle exclude the
search for design. The idea of "random variations", however,
does not form part of Darwin's theory, nor does he even use the
expression. In fact, it is a concept that Darwin explicitly denounces as
"wholly incorrect":
"I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations- so common
and
multiform with organic beings under domestication, and in a
lesser
degree with those under nature- were due to chance. This,
of
course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to
acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular
variation." (ibid.)
And again:
"Whatever the cause may be of each slight difference between the
offspring and their parents- and a cause for each must exist- we
have
reason to believe that it is the steady accumulation of beneficial
differences which has given rise to all the more important modifications
of
structure in relation to the habits of each species." (ibid.)
Darwin divides
variations into "definite variability" and "indefinite
variability", neither of which are "random variations":
"The direct action of changed conditions leads to definite or indefinite
results. In the latter case the organisation seems to become plastic, and
we
have much fluctuating variability. In the former case the nature of the
organism is such that it yields readily, when subjected to certain conditions,
and
all, or nearly all the individuals become modified in the same way." (ibid.)
Darwin also
speaks of "spontaneous variations", repeatedly calling them
"so-called spontaneous variations", because of his belief that, for
this category also, "there must be some efficient cause":
"In the
third place, we have to allow for the direct and definite action of changed
conditions of life, and for so-called spontaneous variations, in which the nature
of the
conditions apparently plays a quite subordinate part. Bud-variations, such
as the
appearance of a moss-rose on a common rose, or of a nectarine on a
peach
tree offer good instances of spontaneous variations; but even in these
cases,
if we bear in mind the power of a minute drop of poison in producing
complex galls, we ought not to feel too sure that the above variations are not
the
effect of some local change in the nature of the sap, due to some change
in the
conditions. There must be some efficient cause for each slight individual
difference, as well as for more strongly marked variations which occasionally
arise; and if the unknown cause were to act persistently, it is almost certain that
all
the individuals of the species would be similarly modified." (ibid.)
And again:
"Under domestication we see much variability, caused, or at least excited,
by
changed conditions of life; but often in so obscure a manner, that we
are
tempted to consider the variations as spontaneous. Variability is
governed by many complex laws. . . " (ibid.)
In a later
edition of his work, Darwin assigns greater importance to "spontaneous
variability", but always within the context of his over-all philosophy of
science that such a designation is only "provisionally" accurate, indicating not the lack of a knowable
cause, but rather the present incomplete state of scientific knowledge:
In the earlier editions of this work I underrated, as it now seems probable,
the
frequency and importance of modifications due to spontaneous variability.
But it
is impossible to attribute to this cause the innumerable structures which
are so
well adapted to the habits of life of each species. I can no more believe
in
this than that the well-adapted form of a race-horse or greyhound, which
before
the principle of selection by man was well understood, excited so much
surprise in the minds of the older naturalists, can thus be explained." (ibid.)
As Darwin
concludes:
"A grand and almost untrodden field of inquiry will be opened, on the
causes
and
laws of variation, on correlation, on the effects of use and disuse, on the
direct
action of external conditions, and so forth." (ibid.)
Chance
and "by chance".
Very often
Darwin speaks of "the chance" or "the chances" of a
particular species surviving. In these cases he is not referring to
variations happening "by chance", but to the likelihood of a species surviving under a given set of
circumstances or conditions.
Actually in very few cases does Darwin refer to the concept of
"chance", meaning "by chance". In this instance, for
example, he even finds the need to qualify it by the expression "as we may
call it":
"Mere chance, as we may call it, might cause one variety to differ in
some
character from its parents, and the offspring of this variety again
to
differ from its parent in the very same character and in a greater
degree; but this alone would never account for so habitual and large a
degree
of difference as that between the species of the same genus. . . .
It
will be admitted that the production of races so different as short-horn
and
Hereford cattle, . . . &c., could never have been effected by the mere
chance
accumulation of similar variations during many successive
generations." (ibid.)
Randomness
and the scientific method.
The Laureates' definition of variations as "random" attacks the
nature itself of scientific pursuit as a search for causes and natural
explanations of observable phenomena. Quite apart from the fact that
Darwin does not hold this view, it is not even something that science could
prove anyway. Any scientific explanation presenting "chance" as
the cause of something, is not science but anti-science. It is the task
of science to uncover the laws or regularities that govern natural phenomena,
not to declare that they happen "by chance". If science cannot
tell us what the cause of something is, then it keeps looking. We know
for example that radiation can mutate genes, and there is no reason to believe
that other gene mutations don't have specific causes as well.
You don't
search for something unless you believe that it may be found. Randomness as an
explanation is not true science and, as a matter of fact, does not come from
actual scientific work, actual scientific research by actual biologists;
randomness comes not from the research of biologists but from the philosophizing speculations of ideological believers in evolution.
Randomness is,
in fact, a derived or negative concept that can only be known in relation to
its opposite: pattern. Often times what today appears random, is,
tomorrow, found to be an integral and necessary part of a larger pattern.
The most that can be said by science is that this or that phenomenon right now
appears to us to be random, but further study may determine its exact causal nature.
The scientific search has no time limit. We can't say, for example, that
unless we uncover a reason for something by next Wednesday at 10:30, we are
going to declare it a "random phenomenon". This problem is more
than evident in the present case since we have seen that at each level as
molecular biology has rolled back the mystery of life, the place of randomness
has had to be revised backwards. The methodological assumption of underlying
and knowable causal laws is clearly held by Darwin as we can see in this
passage:
"Besides the variations which can be grouped with more or less
probability under the foregoing heads, there is a large class of
variations which may be provisionally called spontaneous, for to
our ignorance they appear to arise without any exciting cause. It
can,
however, be shewn that such variations, whether consisting
of
slight individual differences, or of strongly-marked and abrupt
deviations of structure, depend much more on the constitution of
the
organism than on the nature of the conditions to which it has
been
subjected." (Ibid.)