Ernst Mayr

Category:TauTology
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/12776
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe02phl3.html
Here is an important article that does not appear to be webbed elsewhere.
The page number is at the foot of each page in square brackets.
It has many important quotes, but too many to list here (except the
tagline).
I will reference this on my "Articles posted to CED" page
(http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cedartic.html) so that search engines
like Google can find it.
As before, I assume that this is covered by the "fair use" provisions of
international and USA copyright law, being distributed without profit for
scientific and educational purposes.
Steve
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought
Scientific American July 2000
by Ernst Mayr
Great minds shape the thinking of successive historical periods. Luther
and Calvin inspired the Reformation; Locke, Leibniz, Voltaire and
Rousseau the Enlightenment. Modern thought is most dependent on the
influence of Charles Darwin
Clearly, our conception of the world and our place in it is, at the beginning
of the 21st century, drastically different from the zeitgeist at the beginning
of the 19th century. But no consensus exists as to the source of this
revolutionary change. Karl Marx is often mentioned; Sigmund Freud has
been in and out of favor; Albert Einstein's biographer Abraham Pais made
the exuberant claim that Einstein's theories "have profoundly changed the
way modern men and women think about the phenomena of inanimate
nature." No sooner had Pais said this, though, than he recognized the
exaggeration. "It would actually be better to say 'modern scientists' than
'modern men and women,'" he wrote because one needs schooling in the
physicist's style of thought and
[67]
mathematical techniques to appreciate Einstein's contributions in their
fullness. Indeed, this limitation is true for all the extraordinary theories of
modern physics, which have had little impact on the way the average
person apprehends the world.
The situation differs dramatically with regard to concepts in biology. Many
biological ideas proposed during the past 150 years stood in stark conflict
with what everybody assumed to be true. The acceptance of these ideas
required an ideological revolution. And no biologist has been responsible
for more-and for more drastic-modifications of the average person's
worldview than Charles Darwin.
Darwin's accomplishments were so many and so diverse that it is useful to
distinguish three fields to which he made major contributions:
evolutionary biology; the philosophy of science; and the modern zeitgeist.
Although I will be focusing on this last domain, for the sake of
completeness I will put forth a short overview of his contributions-
particularly as they inform his later ideas-to the first two areas.
A Secular View of Life
Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology. Four
of his contributions to evolutionary biology are especially important, as
they held considerable sway beyond that discipline. The first is the
nonconstancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself. The
second is the notion of branching evolution, implying the common descent
of all species of living things on earth from a single unique origin. Up until
1859, all evolutionary proposals, such as that of naturalist Jean-Baptiste
Lamarck, instead endorsed linear evolution, a teleological march toward
greater perfection that had been in vogue since Aristotle's concept of Scala
Naturae, the chain of being. Darwin further noted that evolution must be
gradual, with no major breaks or discontinuities. Finally, he reasoned that
the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.
These four insights served as the foundation for Darwin's founding of a
new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology. Despite
the passing of a century before this new branch of philosophy fully
developed, its eventual form is based on Darwinian concepts. For
example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology,
in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science-the
evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already
taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the
explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a
historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the
particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.
For example, three different scenarios have been proposed for the sudden
extinction of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous: a devastating
epidemic; a catastrophic change of climate; and the impact of an asteroid,
known as the Alvarez theory. The first two narratives were ultimately
refuted by evidence incompatible with them. All the known facts,
however, fit the Alvarez theory, which is now widely accepted. The testing
of historical narratives implies that the wide gap between science and the
humanities that so troubled physicist C. P. Snow is actually nonexistent-by
virtue of its methodology and its acceptance of the time factor that makes
change possible, evolutionary biology serves as a bridge.
The discovery of natural selection, by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace,
must itself be counted as an extraordinary philosophical advance. The
principle remained unknown throughout the more than 2,000-year history
of philosophy ranging from the Greeks to Hume, Kant and the Victorian
era. The concept of natural selection had remarkable power for explaining
directional and adaptive changes. Its nature is simplicity itself. It is not a
force like the forces described in the laws of physics; its mechanism is
simply the elimination of inferior individuals. This process of nonrandom
elimination impelled Darwin's contemporary, philosopher Herbert
Spencer, to describe evolution with the now familiar term "survival of the
fittest." (This description was long ridiculed as circular reasoning: "Who
are the fittest? Those who survive." In reality, a careful analysis can
usually determine why certain individuals fail to thrive in a given set of
conditions.)
The truly outstanding achievement of the principle of natural selection is
that it makes unnecessary the invocation of "final causes"-that is, any
teleological forces leading to a particular end. In fact, nothing is
predetermined. Furthermore, the objective of selection even may change
from one generation to the next, as environmental circumstances vary.
A diverse population is a necessity for the proper working of natural
selection. (Darwin's success meant that typologists, for whom all members
of a class are essentially identical were left with an untenable viewpoint.)
Because of the importance of variation, natural selection should be
considered a two-step process: the production of abundant variation is
followed by the elimination of inferior individuals. This latter step is
directional. By adopting natural selection, Darwin settled the several-
thousand-year-old argument among philosophers over chance or necessity.
Change on the earth is the result of both, the first step being dominated by
randomness, the second by necessity.
Darwin was a holist: for him the object, or target, of selection was
primarily the individual as a whole. The geneticists, almost from 1900 on,
in a rather reductionist spirit preferred to consider the gene the target of
evolution.
[68]
In the past 25 years, however, they have largely returned to the Darwinian
view that the individual is the principal target.
For 80 years after 1859, bitter controversy raged as to which of four
competing evolutionary theories was valid. "Transmutation" was the
establishment of a new species or new type through a single mutation, or
saltation. "Orthogenesis" held that intrinsic teleological tendencies led to
transformation. Lamarckian evolution relied on the inheritance of acquired
characteristics. And now there was Darwin's variational evolution, through
natural selection. Darwin's theory clearly emerged as the victor during the
evolutionary synthesis of the 1940s, when the new discoveries in genetics
were married with taxonomic observations concerning systematics, the
classification of organisms by their relationships. Darwinism is now
almost unanimously accepted by knowledgeable evolutionists. In addition,
it has become the basic component of the new philosophy of biology.
A most important principle of the new biological philosophy,
undiscovered for almost a century after the publication of on the Origin of
Species, is the dual nature of biological processes. These activities are
governed both by the universal laws of physics and chemistry and by a
genetic program, itself the result of natural selection, which has molded
the genotype for millions of generations. The causal factor of the
possession of a genetic program is unique to living organisms, and it is
totally absent in the inanimate world. Because of the backward state of
molecular and genetic knowledge in his time, Darwin was unaware of this
vital factor.
Another aspect of the new philosophy of biology concerns the role of laws.
Laws give way to concepts in Darwinism. In the physical sciences, as a
rule, theories are based on laws; for example, the laws of motion led to the
theory of gravitation. In evolutionary biology, however, theories are
largely based on concepts such as competition, female choice, selection,
succession and dominance. These biological concepts, and the theories
based on them, cannot be reduced to the laws and theories of the physical
sciences. Darwin himself never stated this idea plainly. My assertion of
Darwin's importance to modern thought is the result of an analysis of
Darwinian theory over the past century. During this period, a pronounced
change in the methodology of biology took place. This transformation was
not caused exclusively by Darwin, but it was greatly strengthened by
developments in evolutionary biology. Observation, comparison and
classification, as well as the testing of competing historical narratives,
became the methods of evolutionary biology, outweighing
experimentation.
I do not claim that Darwin was single-handedly responsible for all the
intellectual developments in this period. Much of it, like the refutation of
French mathematician and physicist Pierre-Simon Laplace's determinism,
was in the air. " But Darwin in most cases either had priority or promoted
the new views most vigorously.
The Darwinian Zeitgeist
A 21st-century person looks at the world quite differently than a citizen of
the Victorian era did. This shift had multiple sources, particularly the
incredible advances in technology. But what is not at all appreciated is the
great extent to which this shift in thinking indeed resulted from Darwin's
ideas.
Remember that in 1850 virtually all leading scientists and philosophers
were Christian men. The world they inhabited had been created by God,
and as the natural theologians claimed, He had instituted wise laws that
brought about the perfect adaptation of all organisms to one another and to
their environment. At the same time, the architects of the scientific
revolution had constructed a worldview based on physicalism (a reduction
to spatiotemporal things or events or their properties), teleology,
determinism and other basic principles. Such was the thinking of Western
man prior to the 1859 publication of on the Origin of Species. The basic
principles proposed by Darwin would stand in total conflict with these
prevailing ideas.
First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The
theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and
diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as
creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God
even if one accepts evolution). Darwin pointed out that creation, as
described in the Bible and the origin accounts of other cultures, was
contradicted by almost any aspect of the natural world. Every aspect of the
"wonderful design" so admired by the natural theologians could be
explained by natural selection. (A closer look also reveals that design is
often not so wonderful-see "Evolution and the Origins of Disease," by
Randolph M. Nesse and George C. Williams; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,
November 1998.) Eliminating God from science made room for strictly
scientific explanations of all natural phenomena; it gave rise to positivism;
it produced a powerful intellectual and spiritual revolution, the effects of
which have lasted to this day.
Second, Darwinism refutes typology. From the time of the Pythagoreans
and Plato, the general concept of the diversity of the world emphasized its
invariance and stability. This viewpoint is called typology, or essentialism.
The seeming variety, it was said, consisted of a limited number of natural
kinds (essences or types), each one forming a class. The members of each
class were thought to be identical, constant, and sharply separated from the
members of other essences.
Variation, in contrast, is nonessential and accidental. A triangle illustrates
essentialism: all triangles have the same
[69]
fundamental characteristics and are sharply delimited against quadrangles
or any other geometric figures. An intermediate between a triangle and a
quadrangle is inconceivable. Typological thinking, therefore, is unable to
accommodate variation and gives rise to a misleading conception of
human races. For the typologist, Caucasians, Africans, Asians or Inuits are
types that conspicuously differ from other human ethnic groups. This
mode of thinking leads to racism. (Although the ignorant misapplication of
evolutionary theory known as "social Darwinism" often gets blamed for
justifications of racism, adherence to the disproved essentialism preceding
Darwin in fact can lead to a racist viewpoint.)
Darwin completely rejected typological thinking and introduced instead
the entirely different concept now called population thinking. All
groupings of living organisms, including humanity, are populations that
consist of uniquely different individuals. No two of the six billion humans
are the same. Populations vary not by their essences but only by mean
statistical differences. By rejecting the constancy of populations, Darwin
helped to introduce history into scientific thinking and to promote a
distinctly new approach to explanatory interpretation in science.
Third, Darwin's theory of natural selection made any invocation of
teleology unnecessary. From the Greeks onward, there existed a universal
belief in the existence of a teleological force in the world that led to ever
greater perfection. This "final cause" was one of the causes specified by
Aristotle. After Kant, in the Critique of Judgment, had unsuccessfully
attempted to describe biological phenomena with the help of a physicalist
Newtonian explanation, he then invoked teleological forces. Even after
1859, teleological explanations (orthogenesis) continued to be quite
popular in evolutionary biology. The acceptance of the Scala Naturae and
the explanations of natural theology were other manifestations of the
popularity of teleology. Darwinism swept such considerations away.
(The designation "teleological" actually applied to various different
phenomena. Many seemingly end-directed processes in inorganic nature
are the simple consequence of natural laws-a stone falls or a heated piece
of metal cools because of laws of physics, not some end-directed process.
Processes in living organisms owe their apparent goal-directedness to the
operation of an inborn genetic or acquired program. Adapted systems,
such as the heart or kidneys, may engage in activities that can be
considered goal seeking, but the systems themselves were acquired during
evolution and are continuously fine-tuned by natural selection. Finally,
there was a belief in cosmic teleology, with a purpose and predetermined
goal ascribed to everything in nature. Modern science, however, is unable
to substantiate the existence of any such cosmic teleology.)
Fourth, Darwin does away with determinism. Laplace notoriously boasted
that a complete knowledge of the current world and all its processes would
enable him to predict the future to infinity. Darwin, by comparison,
accepted the universality of randomness and chance throughout the
process of natural selection. (Astronomer and philosopher John Herschel
referred to natural selection contemptuously as "the law of the higgledy-
piggledy.") That chance should play an important role in natural processes
has befit an unpalatable thought for many physicists. Einstein expressed
this distaste in his statement, "God does not play dice." Of course, as
previously mentioned, only the first step in natural selection, the
production of variation, is a matter of chance. The character of the second
step, the actual selection, is to be directional.
Despite the initial resistance by physicists and philosophers, the role of
contingency and chance in natural processes is now almost universally
acknowledged. Many biologists and philosophers deny the existence of
universal laws in biology and suggest that all regularities be stated in
probabilistic terms, as nearly all so-called biological laws have exceptions.
Philosopher of science Karl Popper's famous test of falsification therefore
cannot be applied in these cases.
Fifth, Darwin developed a new view of humanity and, in turn, a new
anthropocentrism. Of all of Darwin's proposals, the one his contemporaries
found most difficult to accept was that the theory of common descent
applied to Man. For theologians and philosophers alike, Man was a
creature above and apart from other living beings. Aristotle, Descartes and
Kant agreed on this sentiment, no matter how else their thinking diverged.
But biologists Thomas Huxley and Ernst Haeckel revealed through
rigorous comparative anatomical study that humans and living apes clearly
had common ancestry, an assessment that has never again been seriously
questioned in science. The application of the theory of common descent to
Man deprived man of his former unique position.
Ironically, though, these events did not lead to an end to anthropocentrism.
The study of man showed that, in spite of his descent, he is indeed unique
among all organisms. Human intelligence is unmatched by that of any
other creature. Humans are the only animals with true language, including
grammar and syntax. Only humanity, as Darwin emphasized, has
developed genuine ethical systems. In addition, through high intelligence,
language and long parental care, humans are the only creatures to have
created a rich culture. And by these means, humanity has attained, for
better or worse, an unprecedented dominance over the entire globe.
Sixth, Darwin provided a scientific foundation for ethics. The question is
frequently raised-and usually rebuffed-as to whether evolution adequately
explains healthy human ethics. Many wonder how, if selection rewards the
individual only for behavior that enhances his own survival and
reproductive success, such pure selfishness can lead to any sound ethics.
The widespread thesis
[70]
of social Darwinism, promoted at the end of the 19th century by Spencer,
was that evolutionary explanations were at odds with the development of
ethics
We now know, however, that in a social species not only the individual
must be considered-an entire social group can be the target of selection.
Darwin applied this reasoning to the human species in 1871 in The
Descent of Man. The survival and prosperity of a social group depends to
a large extent on the harmonious cooperation of the members of the group,
and this behavior must be based on altruism. Such altruism, by furthering
the survival and prosperity of the group, also indirectly benefits the fitness
of the group's individuals. The result amounts to selection favoring
altruistic behavior.
Kin selection and reciprocal helpfulness in particular will be greatly
favored in a social group. Such selection for altruism has been
demonstrated in recent years to be widespread among many other social
animals. One can then perhaps encapsulate the relation between ethics and
evolution by saying that a propensity for altruism and harmonious
cooperation in social groups is favored by natural selection. The old thesis
of social Darwinismstrict selfishness-was based on an incomplete
understanding of animals, particularly social species.
The Influence of New Concepts
Let me now try to summarize my major findings. No educated person any
longer questions the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we
now know to be a simple fact. Likewise, most of Darwin's particular theses
have been fully confirmed, such as that of common descent, the
gradualism of evolution, and his explanatory theory of natural selection.
I hope I have successfully illustrated the wide reach of Darwin's ideas.
Yes, he established a philosophy of biology by introducing the time factor,
by demonstrating the importance of chance and contingency, and by
showing that theories in evolutionary biology are based on concepts rather
than laws. But furthermore-and this is perhaps Darwin's greatest
contribution-he developed a set of new principles that influence the
thinking of every person: the living world, through evolution, can be
explained without recourse to supernaturalism; essentialism or typology is
invalid, and we must adopt population thinking, in which all individuals
are unique (vital for education and the refutation of racism); natural
selection, applied to social groups, is indeed sufficient to account for the
origin and maintenance of altruistic ethical systems; cosmic teleology, an
intrinsic process leading life automatically to ever greater perfection, is
fallacious, with all seemingly teleological phenomena explicable by purely
material processes; and determinism is thus repudiated, which places our
fate squarely in our own evolved hands.
To borrow Darwin's phrase, there is grandeur in this view of life. New
modes of thinking have been, and are being, evolved. Almost every
component in modern man's belief system is somehow affected by
Darwinian principles.
This article is based on the September 23, 1999, lecture that Mayr
delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal
Swedish Academy of Science. [http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-
online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm]
The Author
ERNST MAYR is one of the towering figures in the history of
evolutionary biology. Following his graduation from the University of
Berlin in 1926, ornithological expeditions to New Guinea fueled his
interest in theoretical evolutionary biology. Mayr emigrated to the U.S. in
1931 and in 1953 joined the faculty of Harvard University, where he is
now Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology, Emeritus. His conception of
rapid speciation of isolated populations formed the basis for the
wellknown neoevolutionary concept of punctuated equilibrium. The author
of some of the 20th century's most influential volumes on evolution, Mayr
is the recipient of numerous awards including the National Medal of
Science.
Further Information
DARWIN ON MAN: A PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY OF SCIENTIFIC
CREATIVITY. Second edition. Howard E. Gruber. University of Chicago
Press, 1981.
ONE LONG ARGUMENT CHARLES DARWIN AND THE GENESIS
OF MODERN EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT. Ernst Mayr. Harvard
University Press, 1993.
CHARLES DARWIN: VOYAGING: A BIOGRAPHY. Janet Browne.
Princeton University Press, 1996.
THE DESCENT OF MAN. Charles Darwin. Popular current edition.
Prometheus Books, 1997.
THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. Charles Darwin. Popular current edition.
Bantam Classic, 1999.
[71]
[Mayr E.W., "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific
American, Vol. 283, No. 1, July 2000, pp.67-71]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology. ...
Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in
contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science-the evolutionist
attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place.
Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of
such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative,
consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to
the events one is trying to explain." (Mayr E.W., "Darwin's Influence on
Modern Thought," Scientific American, Vol. 283, No. 1, July 2000, pp.67-
71, p.68)
Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol). http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Moderator: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign &
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProblemsOfEvolution/ Book: "Problems of
Evolution" http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/PoE00ToC.html &
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe00cont.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------