DARWINISM--DEAD OR ALIVE?

"I wrote a short article contending that classical Darwinism was dead. This was almost entirely based on the verbatim statements of eminent biologists, my part being to select and arrange.... My thesis was simply that the professionals had moved away from classical Darwinism, but that no one had informed the public of what had happened. This, I believed, was important news for the American public." --Norman Macbeth

For the early Darwinists, the great appeal of the Natural Selection doctrine lay in its replacement of the Divine Hand hypothesis. "Newton banished God from nature," writes Gerald Heard, "Darwin banished him from life." [1] Darwin discovered, so the legend goes, the true, "natural" explanation for life on Earth. In reality, one anthropomorphic theory was replaced by another, the Divine Hand by the hand of nature. At the turn of the century, Natural Selection was no longer regarded as a valid concept in (cognoscente) scientific circles. "Forty years ago," writes Henry Adams in 1903, "our friends always explained things and had the cosmos down to a point, teste [by witness of] Darwin and Charles Lyell. Now they say they don't believe there is an explanation [for existence], or that you can choose between half a dozen, all correct. The Germans are all balled up. Every generalization that we settled forty years ago is abandoned. The one most completely thrown over is our gentle Darwin's Survival [survival of the fittest], which no longer has a leg to stand on." [2] One of the first critics of the Natural Selection theory was Darwin himself. "I suppose natural selection was a bad term," he wrote, "but to change it now, I think, would make confusion worse confounded, nor can I think of a better. 'Natural preservation' would not -1-

imply a preservation of particular varieties and would seem a truism, and would not bring man and nature's selection under one point of view." [3] "Natural preservation" would have been simply a label for something that anyone can see. (It "would seem a truism.") "Natural Selection" implies an agency underlying the fact of natural preservation. Thus it can be said to bring "man and nature's selection under one point of view." All implied parallels aside, "Natural Selection" is, as indicated previously, nothing but an empty generalization. It amounts to little more than the proposition that since some organisms survive and others don't, there must be a process of selection going on. Not long after the publication of the Origin, Darwin indicated that he preferred the term "survival of the fittest" to Natural Selection. Survival of the fittest at least suggests a principle of evolution: The greater the degree of versatility in adapting to the environment (i.e. "fitness"), the greater the likelihood of survival. To answer the question of whether classical Darwinism is dead or alive: Classical Darwinism was never "alive" in the sense of being a living, working, demonstrable theory. However, it was (and is) very much alive at the level of the basal paradigm. It became a chief component of what we call Scientism ... science-as-religion. [4] The hypothesis of Natural Selection filled the God spot, so to speak, in the basal paradigm. What is the source of order in the world? "Natural Selection." What about God? "'God' is an anthropomorphic fiction." How do we find out the truth of existence?--the real lowdown on life? "Close your Bible, open your Darwin." Contemporary Western civilization may be said to begin in 1859 with the publication of the Origin. This book and its sequel, The Descent of Man, became the Gospel of Science--science's equivalent of the New Testament. Darwinism became, in other words, encoded in the new, emerging basal paradigm. Darwinism is lacking in scientific merit, as we know. Thus the Darwinization of the paradigm resulted inevitably in a splitting of the realm of science. Scientists who honored the tradition of "hypotheses non fingo" -2-

(no hypotheses without proof) continued the useful work of "pure science." Scientists willing to put their hearts, minds and mouths in the service of unprovable doctrines formed the priesthood of the new religion of science ... Scientism. Scientism is today the West's current dominant religion. At the heart of it is a number of doctrines (the equivalents of church canons) stemming from the original Darwinism, from Social Darwinism (the evangelical application of Darwinism to social theory), and from our current orthodoxy, so-called Neo-Darwinism. With the full emergence of the new paradigm, Materialistic Scientism, the honor once accorded to the priests was transferred to the scientists. Most celebrated among the scientists today are the geneticists. The "genetic engineers" are the priests, the exorcists, of our time. Today, virtually all "dysfunctional behavior" and all disease is viewed as having a genetic origin. How do we fix behavioral disorders? How do we fix diseases? We summon the genetic engineers. We find and correct the genetic defects that are the source of the problem. The victory of Darwinism is far from complete, of course. In ways great and small, we still see a kind of "battle of the paradigms" being waged in these latter days. On the back windows or bumpers of autos owned by old paradigmers, we see the logo of Christianity, a fish containing the name "Jesus." On the vehicles of new paradigmers, we a see a fish with little legs. The name inside the fish is "Darwin." On a far more serious level, certain of the agendas and objectives of Scientism have polarized our society, to the point where groups of citizens are forming self-defense organizations, i.e., "militias." Built upon the highly questionable Darwinian premise that life is a fearsome dog-eat-dog struggle, Scientism holds that the only hope for peace is in turning the planet into a kind of super-kennel. Once humankind has been properly kenneled, then perhaps the work of genetically engineering the perfect world and perfect people can begin in earnest.

-3-

Darwinism now exists at the level of "most basic assumptions about the nature of existence." It is paradigmatic, and for this reason, it has resisted refutation time and again. Most would-be topplers of Darwinism are pretty naive. They have no idea that "scientically valid refutation" is not sufficent. What is required to kill Darwinism is something like a silver stake, a large hammer, and the right opportunity.

-4-

TWO NINETEENTH CENTURY CRITICS OF DARWINISM

In this century and the last, more than a few good critiques of Darwinism, or key components of Darwinism, have been offered to the public, and none of these had much impact. In late nineteenth century England, there was one voice of real genius raised against Darwinism, that of Samuel Butler, who is remembered now (when remembered at all) as the author of a utopian fiction called Erewon. Butler's principal objection to Darwinism was that the hypothesis of Natural Selection cannot possibly be an adequate explanation of evolution. Natural Selection might tell us a little something about the process of speciation, the process of species A becoming species B and species C, but it cannot explain the existence of A, B or C. In examining Darwin's text, Barzun writes, "Butler found that small random variations were taken for granted or occasionally ascribed to a metaphysical agent called Variation, so as to provide Natural Selection with something to work on...." "To me," Butler wrote, "it seems that the 'Origin of Variations,' whatever it is, is the only true Origin of Species." [5] In other words, Butler saw that there was a Something, not defined by Darwin, that was generating the organismal variations that Natural Selection then operated upon. Natural Selection had to be part of much larger process. It was not, in itself, a sufficient explanation of the origin of anything. What puzzled Butler's contemporaries, Barzun writes, is that he ]Butler] "seemed to be striking out on a new line [of speculation] instead of choosing, like everybody else, between theology and materialistic science...." [6] The line of thought of Mr. Butler was not new. It was Lamarckian. A biological organism, Butler believed, is not simply a machine built and operated by Natural Selection. It has an "interest" in evolutionary process. "It wants to do certain things and not to do others. In other words, the physical action of living beings is the -5-

expression of a mental action," mental referring here to "consciousness, however limited." [7] However superior to Darwinism, Butler-style Lamarckism didn't stand the chance of a snowball in Hades in an historical period describable as "The Triumph of Materialism."

Petr Kropotkin has been cited earlier as an important early critic of the Darwinian hypothesis that evolution is a product of bitter struggle of each against all. Kropotkin correctly places Darwin in the tradition of the eighteenth century pessimist Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes took the position, Kropotkin writes, that the state of nature is "nothing but a permanent fight between individuals, accidentally huddled together by the mere caprice of their bestial existence...." The Hobbesian philosophy, Kropotkin continues, has plenty of admirers still; and we have had of late quite a school of writers who, taking possession of Darwin's terminology rather than of his leading ideas, made of it an argument in favour of Hobbes's views upon primitive man, and even succeeded in giving them a scientific appearance...." The case of T.H. Huxley, "Darwin's bulldog," is cited: "Huxley, as is known, took the lead of that school, and in a paper written in 1888 he represented primitive men as a sort of tigers or lions, deprived of all ethical conceptions, fighting out the struggle for existence to its bitter end, and living a life of 'continual free fight'; to quote his own words--'beyond the limited and temporary relations of the family, the Hobbesian war of each against all was the normal state of existence.'" [8] Political difficulties prevented "Prince Kropotkin" from publishing his refutation of the Hobbesian-Malthusian-Darwinian hypothesis (evolution from struggle) until 1902. Mutual Aid--A Factor in Evolution is still an impressive, well-documented argument for the thesis that sociability, not conflict, is the key to evolutionary progress. In his own words: "While fully admitting that force, swiftness, protective colours, cunningness, and endurance to hunger and cold, which are mentioned by Darwin and Wallace, are so many qualities making the individual, or the species, the fittest under certain circumstances, we -6-

maintain that under any circumstances sociability is the greatest advantage in the struggle for life. Those species which willingly or unwillingly abandon it are doomed to decay; while those animals which know best how to combine, have the greatest chances of survival and of further evolution, although they may be inferior to others in each of the faculties enumerated by Darwin and Wallace, save the intellectual faculty. The highest vertebrates, and especially mankind, are the best proof of this assertion...." [9] Kropotkin was a member of the highest Russian aristocracy, his family descended from the Princes of Smolensk and Kieff. Politically, however, he was in the tradition of egalitarian republicanism. Consequently, regarded as an "anarchist," he was in and out of prisons during the last decades of the nineteenth century. An "anarchist," it should be noted, is not someone who is "opposed to all order" (the common definition), but someone opposed to the various "-archies," including monarchy and oligarchy. On the basis of his wide experience, Kropotkin came to the understanding that the highest and most enduring achievements of mankind come from the masses. The legacy of ruling classes, he believed, is war and destruction. In all, "Prince" Kropotkin, as he was known by many, was the nineteenth century scientist best qualified to be designated the successor of Lamarck. In 1883, Kropotkin was imprisoned in France for political reasons. In England a petition for his release was drawn up, stressing the importance of Kropotkin's many contributions to science. Many notable Britons signed the petition. T.H. Huxley declined to add his name. Later, Huxley, who was in 1883 president of the Royal Society, explained his refusal to offer aid to a fellow scientist in this way: "So long as I am President of the Royal Society, I shall feel bound to abstain from from taking any prominent part of public movements as to the propriety of which the opinions of the Fellows of the Society differ." In the years following, Petr Kropotkin published many articles which were directly critical of Huxley's Hobbesian Darwinism. Huxley failed to respond to any of the criticisms. -7-

INTO THE TWENTIETH ...

Given the backwardness of biology in the middle nineteenth century, there was really not much that Darwin or anyone else could have said, with certainty, regarding the mechanism of evolution. Now, in fairness to Darwin, let us give him another chance.... It is June 1859. Charles Darwin, having worked up quite a headache trying to figure out evolution, leaves his study and enters the parlor. There waiting for him is a large package. He opens it and finds a manuscript. The manuscipt is not from his brilliant junior colleague, Alfred Wallace, the co-discoverer of Natural Selection; rather, it is from the future.... it is a book by James Lovelock called Gaia--A New Look at Life on Earth. With great wonderment, Darwin reads the "Gaia hypothesis" of Lovelock, the hypothesis that "the entire range of living matter on Earth, from whales to viruses, and from oaks to algae, could be regarded as constituting a single living entity, capable of manipulating the Earth's atmosphere to suit its overall needs and endowed with faculties and powers far beyond those of its constituent parts." [10] No view could be more different from that of Darwin. Darwin regards the hypothesis as preposterous. At the same time, he is intrigued by the wealth of data Lovelock brings to bear on his thesis, and especially by the fact that "The climate and the chemical properties of the Earth now and throughout its history seems always to have been optimal for life." [11] "Astonishing!" Darwin remarks to himself. Astonishing, indeed. The Earth, Lovelock demonstrates amply, is a "homeostatic" phenomenon. "Homeostasis" is a word invented by the American psychologist Walter Cannon. It refers (in the words of Lovelock) to "that remarkable state of constancy in which living things hold themselves when their environment is changing." [12] The fact of homeostasis would have given Darwin the reference he was looking for. "Ah!--nature is homeostatic, and thus what we mean by 'Natural Selection' is homeostatic -8-

selection!" The Lovelock data would have provided Darwin with a valid scientific framework and enabled him to define Natural Selection is a testable way. (Methodological aside: Only hypotheses that can be tested can be considered "scientific.") Natural Selection might have been defined as "homeostasis-producing selection," or, for short, "homeostatic selection." All organisms are under pressure to "balance" with environment; organisms most effective at balancing, for whatever reason, are most likely to survive and reproduce. What "fittest" would mean, in a Lovelock context, is "most aware and appropriately responsive." Unfortunately, Darwin simply did not have the data or the necessary technical means to establish a scientifically viable hypothesis regarding the mechanisms of biological evolution. As formulated by Darwin, Natural Selection cannot be tested, cannot be validated. It can only be assumed. Lamarck had been on the right track; but for Darwin and his colleagues, Lamarckism was "heresy."

In 1903, as Adams points out, classical Darwinism didn't have a leg to stand on. It was dead. So.... if it was dead, why didn't it fall? It didn't fall for the reason discussed above ... it had become part and parcel of the modern basal paradigm. Further, there was apparently no one around with the competency and will to say, "Look, this famous theory that all the world now believes in is nothing but a load of rubbish. Let me explain just why...." Let us regard scientific enterprise in general as a factory--a factory that produces "true knowledge" about the way things are. Okay, who or what is responsible for quality control? The ultimate quality control is the job of philosophy, "science of science." In Darwin's time, and in our own, philosophy was (and is) not doing its job. Generally speaking, philosophy in our civilization has been compromised out of existence. It was taken over, first by the churches and then by academe. Philosophy was not equipped to say Darwinism was dead because philosophy itself was dead. -9-

It is a sad commentary on the quality of the Western knowledge factory that today, as we stand ready to step into the twenty-first century, our orthodox theory of evolution is still, after all these years and refutations, Darwinism. Scientists are "workers" in the knowledge factory and ordinarily are not "objective" enough to run good quality control. In the typical education of a scientist, there is little (if any) attention given to the philosophy and practice of scientific methodology. Scientists are invariably specialists. They have degrees in nuclear physics, in beetles and bugs, in a thousand and one specific fields of interest. Few, if any, are degreed in scientific method, its philosophy and practice. As a result, the proponents of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism have been able to say whatever they like without being challenged. The work of contemporary Darwinist Richard Dawkins is a case in point. In his defense of Darwinism titled The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins addresses the question of how it is that intricate organs, such as eyes, evolve. They evolve, he writes, "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 predecessors, to have arisen by chance...." [13] Where is the evidence that anything comes into existence "by chance"? There is none. What is the nature, exactly, of the supposed "gradual step-by-step transformations" of primordial "simple" biological receptor mechanisms into organs such as eyes? No details provided. Just more conjectures, conjectures on top of conjectures. The earliest "eye" we know of is a frequency receiver-transducer known as an "integral membrane protein," or IMP. The first organism to arise is, of course, the single cell. The basic cell membrane is formed by organic compounds called phospholipids, which self-assemble into spherical form. Between the layers of the membrane are situated the IMPs, which are the "eyes" and "mouths" of the cell. Here is a picture of one type of IMP: - 10 -

- 11 -

The IMP is a stimulus-response mechanism. (A) This is the "receptor" component of the mechanism. It is the function of the receptor to identify a specific item (a certain chemical, for instance) important to the cell, and then to "capture" that item. When the receptor detects the item it seeks, it reconfigures itself so as to capture the item. This signals the "effector" component (B) to prepare to receive and transduce ("carry through" the cellular barrier) the target item. The IMP is the very simplest "eye" we know of. Even this simple eye is wonderfully complex. Here, Mr. Dawkins, is your "primordial eye." Now please explain how it arose "by chance." Dawkins cannot do this, of course. His premise is sheer conjecture. Darwin, Mayr, Dawkins--the whole raft of Darwinists--have from time to time passed off nonsense and gibberish as true scientific understanding; and there has been no one to stop them. The quality control function belongs to philosophy, and philosophy, as indicated elsewhere, isn't at home. And it isn't at work. Where is it? It is the eleventh hour, Western Civilization. Do you know where your science of science is?

- 12 -

Scientists opposed to Darwinism are often as lacking in methological competency as the pro-Darwinism scientists. Michael Denton is a case in point. In 1986, Denton, an Australian scientist, published Evolution: A Theory In Crisis. This book, a highly interesting critique, comes to the conclusion that Darwinism is "the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century." "One might have expected," Denton writes, "that a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than a myth." [14] In practically the same breath, Denton remarks, "Darwinism remains.... the only truly scientific theory of evolution" (!) Compounding the confusion, Denton writes, "It was the lack of any obvious scientific alternative which was its [Darwinism's] great attraction in the nineteenth century and has remained one of its enduring strengths ever since 1859. Reject Darwinism and there is, in effect, no scientific theory of evolution." [15] In fact, a "scientific alternative" was available--the Transformism of Lamarck. In fact, there was a Lamarckian school of thought in the last century, and this school of thought persists into our own time. It is only an illusion that there was and is no alternative to Darwinism, an illusion created and perpetrated by the Darwinists. Denton "bought into" the illusion. Further, from the point of view of methology, it is not a "strength" of any particular theory that there is no alternative to the theory. A theory must stand on its own merits, not on an "absence" of other theories. For a long time, a principal "defense" of the Darwinists has been "Well, no one is offering a better idea." This is not a valid defense. As Macbeth indicates, "The proponents of a theory, in science or elsewhere, are obligated to support every link or chain of reasoning, whereas a critic or skeptic may peck at any aspect of the theory, testing it for flaws...." [16] Philosophy has failed us. This is one important reason why classical Darwinism is still with us today. Another important reason is that classical Darwinism underwent, - 13 -

after the turn of the century, some major changes. It became "Neo-Darwinism." [17] It "evolved," so to speak, in the nick of time. Its rescuer was a scientist by the name of August Weismann. How it was that Weismann accomplished this remarkable rescue is a subject of our next chapter.

- 14 -