Gould vs. Bethell Darwin\'s Untimely Burial Stephen

Gould vs. Bethell

DARWIN'S UNTIMELY BURIAL

Stephen Jay Gould, "Darwin's Untimely Burial," Natural History 85 (Oct. 1976): 24-30. ]

Ever since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution, individuals involved with science and religion have tried to negate his thesis. Some scholars, such as British philosopher Tom Bethell, have seen "something very, very wrong with this idea," and hoped to contain it to the sphere of biology and ban its spread into cosmology, psychology, the arts, ethics and religion. Others, such as scientist Jay Gould, recognize Darwin as one of the most brilliant people in history. In the essay, "Darwin's Untimely Burial," Gould refutes Bethell and claims (paraphrasing Mark Twain) "Despite reports to the contrary, the theory of natural selection remains very much alive." Bethell finds Darwinian theory rotten to the core while Gould finds a pearl of great price at the center.

Bethell says he does not support Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection because: "Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. ... At one point in his argument, Darwin was mislead." In the first place, Bethell has a problem with the idea of "survival of the fittest." This term normally means no more than "differential reproductive success" -- the production of more surviving offspring than other competing members of the population -- which is a needless repetition of the same meaning. "The crucial phrase of natural selection means no more than "the survival of those who survive" -- a vacuous tautology" such as "my father is a man," argues Bethell.

In the second place, Bethell agrees that Darwin proposed an independent criterion to define fitness other than survival. However, this also presented a problem, because it was an analogy ... A dangerous and slippery strategy. "Later evolutionists," argues Bethell, "recognize the failure of Darwin's analogy and redefined 'fitness' as mere survival. But they did not realize that they had undermined the logical structure of Darwin's central postulate. Nature provides no independent criterion of fitness; thus, natural selection is tautological."

Bethell moves from these thoughts to his next two corollaries: First, if fitness just means survival, then how can natural selection be a "creative" force, as Darwin supporters strongly note. Natural selection can explain how "a given type of animal became more numerous," but not "how one type of animal gradually changed into another." Secondly, why were Darwin and other 19th-century scientists so positive that mindless nature could be compared with conscious selection by breeders? The philosophy of the capitalistic industrial society considered any change as inherently progressive: Mere survival in nature could only be for the good. Adds Bethell: "It is beginning to look as though what Darwin really discovered was nothing more than the Victorian propensity to believe in progress."

To the tautology argument, Gould responds that people can call Darwin anything but stupid. This Victorian scientist would never expect anyone to understand and accept his argument on this definition of fitness alone. Rather, just look at Darwin's first chapter that is devoted, as Gould notes, to 'artificial selection' of favored traits by animal breeders. For here an independent criterion surely operates. The pigeon fancier knows what he wants. The fittest are not defined by their survival. They are, rather, allowed to survive because they possess desired traits. Further: "Survival of the fittest" is not a tautology. "It is also not the only imaginable or reasonable reading of the evolutionary record. It is testable. It had rivals that failed under the weight of contrary evidence and changing attitudes about the nature of life. It has rivals that may succeed, at least in limiting its scope."

Further, adds Gould, the "principle of natural selection depends upon the validity of an analogy with artificial selection. We must be able, like the pigeon fancier, to identify the fittest beforehand, not only by their subsequent survival. But nature is not an animal breeder; no preordained purpose regulates the history of life. In nature, any traits possessed by survivors must be counted as 'more evolved'; in artificial selection, 'superior' traits are defined before breeding even begins."

In terms of the two corollaries, Gould argues that Bethell is looking at evolution only as an alteration in numbers, not as a change in quality. "Nature, however, is not limited by the calculations of theoretical geneticists. In nature, A's 'superiority' over B. will be expressed as differential survival, but it is not defined by it." Gould admits that his defense of Darwin is not radical or revolutionary. The main point is: Certain morphological, physiological, and behavioral traits should be superior a priori as designs for living in new environments. "These traits confer fitness by an engineer's criterion on a good design, not by the empirical fact of their survival and spread. It got colder before the woolly mammoth evolved its shaggy coat." As for the industrial capitalism of Victorian England, responds Gould, "according to Bethell, Darwin's concept of natural selection as a creative force can be no more than an illusion encouraged by the social and political climate of his times. In the throes of Victorian optimism in imperial Britain, change seemed to be inherently progressive; why not equate survival in nature with increasing fitness in the nontautological sense of improved design."